Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Riach


 * 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 delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Steve Riach

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nothing at all actually convincing of any applicable notability and my searches have found nothing better at all which is not surprising considering his IMDb. SwisterTwister  talk  07:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 30.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 07:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - no reliable sources. Tom29739 [ talk ] 17:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Reads like a resumé with nothing that jumps out to pass notability. The external linking to his work also doesn't help. —  Wylie pedia  19:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. While the current state of the article has no bearing on his notability, a search found little coverage, only mentions such as this, this, and this, which are nowhere near enough to justify keeping the article. --Michig (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2016 (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.