Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alistair Vigier

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alistair Vigier

Alistair Vigier (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)

Fails

• Delete; no notability, mere publicity-mongering. See also
  WP:G5. TJRC (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete AS TJRC said, it reads as wholly promotional, not notable and easily qualifies for G5. —Frosty ☃ 00:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• G5 only applies on articles created in violation of a block or ban; as none of the socks were blocked at the time of article creation, G5 cannot be used as a speedy deletion criteria.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Lack of in-depth coverage from reliable sources. Article promotes non-notable matters. Knox490 (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Really should be CSD'd, because of the lack of notability. —JJBers 15:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete a non-notable business person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article is weak because the subject is not a notable person and has no significant contributions that are newsworthy. There is no need to keep this article. Bmbaker88 (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails
  WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:35, 28 April 2017 (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.