Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Manuel


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  So Why  12:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Rob Manuel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Should be a Speedy. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Help me out. Under which criterion? - Ne  ll  is  00:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment He's got some press coverage as a website and book editor so a speedy is inappropriate. A merge to B3ta would be better than deletion, as most of his activities have been spin-offs from there, although maybe he's notable. He was a big cheese in British internet circles in the early 2000s and I'm not sure if there are now-vanished sources from that era. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep if... it can be established he was "a big cheese in British internet circles" as User:Colapeninsula suggests. I recall coming across his name a number of times in the past (10, 15, 20 years ago?) even though I didn't pay much attention to British internet circles then. (Disclosure: I'm an occasional contributor to this article, plus I've engaged with Manuel slightly in recent years.)--A bit iffy (talk) 19:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric  04:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep coverage seems sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Artw (talk) 04:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: the article just about establishes notability but for it to be encyclopedic a willing editor must improve it, otherwise it should be moved to the draftspace.   Dr Strauss   talk   please use when replying 11:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.