Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Stringfellow

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. Wifione ^Message 06:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Stringfellow

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

After research, it appears that Pete Stringfellow does not pass our WP:GNG nor WP:MUSICIAN guidelines. I was able to find sources, but, only two different publishers with the majority only being from the same publisher.

Perhaps others disagree, but, I added what I could dig up to the external links section of his page for now. Missvain (talk) 05:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see a local musician with some local success, but not enough to garner sources to clear the hurtle of WP:GNG, although if he is related to Stringfellow Hawke, I would re-consider. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominator is to be commended for adding sources to the article, but this person is nowhere near GNG. IMO the article could have been speedied per WP:A7 because it does not even suggest that the person is notable. --MelanieN (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2014 (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.