Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Denham

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. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Denham

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, fails WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as essentially A7 since the Daily Mail cannot be considered the best solid coverage and there's simply nothing else actually convincing of both better notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 22:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing here is substantive enough to constitute a WP:AUTHOR pass, and the sourcing is not solid enough to pass WP:GNG — the only non-primary source here, The Daily Mail, just glancingly namechecks his existence rather than being substantively about him. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2016 (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.