Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy Lennox

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The result was Nom withdrawn / Thanks Eastmain for improving it alot / Since I've just changed my !vote I don't have any issues if anyone wants to change theres, Cheers, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Lennox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Promotional and doesn't meet GNG EBY (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as promo crap, Fails GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Eastmains amazing work! - Even I found looked and found nothing so I'm genuinely surprised sources were found. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - such a person (if he existed) might be notable but this is just unreferenced BLP nonsense. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. Harsh (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added some references and removed the excessively promotional text. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawing my Deletion recommendation - it is absolutely shocking that the subject has turned out to be notable. Due diligence was done before this nomination; the original article and sources (with the common name) were nonsensical. @Eastmain, there needs to be a new silk from sow's ear award. EBY (talk) 02:40, 23 November 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.