Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Kohler


 * 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 per WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:V, and WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Tim Kohler

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

Orphaned, dead-end article tagged for notability concerns since October. Short article makes some grand claims about the subject's notability, but fails to back them up with ... well ... anything. The wider Internet hasn't been much help for finding substantial refs for the various laudatory claims, so it looks like WP: N V is going to be a hurdle this article won't be able to jump. --Dynaflow  babble  22:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can't find substantial references to back it up, the real issue is WP:V. WP:N only really comes into play on material that can be verified but still shouldn't be included. - Mgm|(talk) 09:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops; must've had a brain spasm of some kind. Technically, though, if all unverifiable claims were struck from the article per WP:BLP, what we'd have left is a skeletal stub that also fails WP:N.   --Dynaflow   babble  03:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I searched a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, got 71 hits for "Tim Kohler", but not a single one was about the steakhouse Tim Kohler. Delete unless someone finds some sources before the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 23:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - no sources writing about this individual -- Whpq (talk) 14:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete due to complete lack of sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:28, 30 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.