Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas reed thompson


 * 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. Icewedge (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thomas reed thompson

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Asserts notability, but original tagger for deletion felt it was overly promotional. Sources at present are to a press release. Dloh cierekim  14:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No real evidence of notability. Nyttend (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Insufficient ntoability per inclusion guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Sources appear to all be different copies of the same press release. This does not meet the requirement of significant coverage from reliable sources.  Dloh  cierekim  02:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - lacks evidence of notability, possibly advertising. Terraxos (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Self-published (both Heliographica and Lulu are print-on-demand), no real sources, promotional tone. Possible G11 speedy. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:34, 9 January 2009 (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.