Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon C. Rodegeb

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 keep. Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon C. Rodegeb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No evidence of notability. WatchAndObserve (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google search on "Brandon Rodegeb" (minus the quotes), and here are what I would consider are the best sources for this person. I'm not convinced that any of them are good enough to establish notability though. Most of them seem to be press releases.

• http://www.allbusiness.com/retail-trade/miscellaneous-retail-retail-stores-not/4637006-1.html
• http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20060509/ai_n16351165/pg_2
• http://www.kochdistribution.com/news/ReadPR.aspx?id=83
• http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1065125/
• http://www.hitemup.com/newsarchives/news-archive-7-2003.html

WatchAndObserve (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. --WatchAndObserve (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.. --WatchAndObserve (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This newspaper article: Rappers shine out of East Palo Alto. Oakland Tribune, May 9, 2006 by Todd R. Brown, STAFF WRITER is enough to demonstrate notability. It is not a press release. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per User:Eastmain's article (here). Thus notable "as the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.