Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor Scott FitzGibbon


 * 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. WP:SNOW/WP:IAR close. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Trevor Scott FitzGibbon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PR article about obscure PR guy, possible written by the subject, but failing to establish any kind of notability. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  23:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete- Not Notable PR guy apart from a few articles regarding the sordid mess of rape allegations and retalitory suing etc.- so I think BLP1E applies. In addition, the original creator NoMinorChords has now been blocked as a sockpuppet (and one of its identities was Michaellevineassistant - as we have an article on a Michael Levine (publicist), it makes it look like a paid for article. Curdle (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. cinco deL3X1  ◊distænt write◊  01:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. cinco deL3X1  ◊distænt write◊  01:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * 'Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me?''  04:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:BLP fail. Poor sourced and not notable yet. Siddiqsazzad001       05:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable. Do we really want articles about people whose only accomplishments appear to be sexual harrasment? BronHiggs (talk) 07:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * delete - per non notable and BLP1E with the one court case and low profile afterwardsQuek157 (talk) 08:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to pass the basic requiements of WP:ANYBIO. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 10:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete(leaning towards neutral if better unbiased sources were to come forward). Not even search engines think his name to be notable/relevant, apart from the wiki page. If the former company isn't notable enough to have (had) an article, also not notable by unflattering association with it.  Also if redacted for the who said/planned to do what, the current article would be 3 to 4 sentences long tops.AufdieSocks (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.