Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Berko


 * 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. If anyone wants to merge any of it I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 14:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Wayne Berko

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not seem to fit the notability criteria. Possibly merge with Uni-versal Extras? Ezia (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete -- so he runs (or ran) a recuitment agency, which briefly hit the headlines as a successful one. Is that really notable?  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't need to subjectively assess whether this or that person or job should be notable, under GNG the key thing is whether that person or firm is the subject of multiple substantial pieces of reliable, independently-published coverage. Porn star or clergyman, that's the key criteria. Carrite (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge - into his company Uni-versal Extras. Snappy (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems like the same content is already in the piece, nothing to merge. I'm for keeping the piece on the firm, losing the piece on the proprietor. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Automatic  Strikeout   ( T  •  C ) 01:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 09:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - The Guardian piece listed in the footnotes absolutely counts as 1 towards fulfillment of GNG, but I'm not anything else wheeling down the footnote links; nor is a googlectomy seeming to generate anything of use towards GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I still say delete but would not object to merging/redirecting to Uni-versal Extras. The article should certainly not be allowed to survive.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2013 (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.