Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Grimley (2nd nomination)


 * 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   based upon lack of signifigant coverage required by the general notability guideline. Delete. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Tom Grimley
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Still unnotable. Huh direction (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  — —Tom Morris (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:N.--Xyz or die (talk) 09:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep "fails to advance an argument for deletion". I don't think this should have been relisted under (1) speedy keep criteria criteria #1, (2) WP:BURO (extending an AfD discussion because we "have to"), plus, (3) the community has confirmed their lack of interest with their silence.  The recent comment added after the relisting likewise cannot be reduced by the force of reason, so is not a !vote.  I'm no fan of articles without references meanwhile I see 47,000 Google hits&mdash;at least the nominator should fully prepare the discussion if the rest of us must spend our time looking at the issues, and the admins have a work load added, please.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * While I understand your frustration about the nomination, a speedy keep per your argument is no longer valid as soon as the first real delete !votes come in. As such, you should probably give a reason concerning the notability of this article if you want your !vote to count for anything.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - I see several good news sources online, some of which are reliable sources, so the sourcing could be improved, but that is not a reason for deletion, and in fact, is a reason to keep the article. Rescue it.  FWIW, I don't see the harm in a re-listing. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue that I see with those sources is that, although a bunch are certainly reliable, they don't really come close to significant coverage.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 10:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Re the call for speedy keep, (1) nominator advanced an argument for deletion, "Still unnotable", weak argument by itself (but supported by the first afd) but talks to the basic justification of inclusion. (2) I can't see how WP:BURO justifys a speedy keep. If anything the lack of anyone objecting to a proposed deletion implies support, not opposition to deleteion. (3) "the community has confirmed their lack of interest with their silence." Yes, their lack of interest in maintaining this article. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: I'm seeing no coverage beyond 'mere mentions'. Certainly that's all the seems to be cited in the article, and in the News-WP:GOOGLEHITS that Bearian is citing. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Search engines found several people with same name, none of which is notable.--Zalinda Zenobia (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been rescue flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Yaksar (let's chat) 06:38, 4 August 2011 (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.