Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Soffa (designer)


 * 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   speedy delete, criterion G4. Wasn't notable then, still isn't notable now. —C.Fred (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Steve Soffa (designer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I can see no evidence of significant notability. All the refs are from a very niche poker area. Wholly unstructured article with vanity phrasing. Currently has no encyclopaedic merit.  Velella  Velella Talk 23:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; kikichugirl  oh hello! 05:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete as recreation of previously deleted page - Thought this rang a bell. See also Articles for deletion/Steve Soffa. Doesn't really help that the article's pretty much of no enyclopaedic value or merit. Mabalu (talk) 09:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep the person passes WP:GNG I am seeing reliable sources and coverage from the LVS. Valoem   talk   contrib  00:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 20:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete should have been speedied G4 as Mabalu points out correctly. Refs are promotional releases, blogs and dead links. Google turns up more promotional stuff and social media presence, nothing that passes GNG requirements. Kraxler (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete For all the reasons above, I've tried to speedy it as G4. Promo, fails WP:GNG and previously deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:27, 2 May 2015 (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.