Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Shuter

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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Shuter (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)

Noticeably unsourced article with only a few links and, the current ones simply show no better signs of satisfying the applicable notability. Searches found only a few mentions. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Highly WP:PROMO article that my searches only reveal passing mentions for. As a sidenote, sourcing is terrible and the entire article would not likely survive even if there were sources to support notability. Chrisw80 (talk) 04:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Page reads like a puff piece and subject is only mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is poorly written and the guy doesn't sound too likable, but I found more sources on him like Fox News and The NY Daily News. I'd keep it with a banner asking for more references. VanEman (talk) 03:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and copy edit to address promotional content. The subject meets WP:BASIC. Source examples include: , , , , . North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - poor article quality does not necessarily merit deletion. Plenty of sources pointing to notability. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Eeesh, WP:BEFORE, please. There are a great many news sources, and not merely quoting him, but about him. Obviously the article needed pruning of the many citation tag items that had been up for several years ... so I just did it. That took me all of 90 seconds. Ravenswing 06:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:PROMO still applies to this, but easily passes WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 12:40, 16 April 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.