Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Sue Robinson

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. j⚛e deckertalk 01:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Sue Robinson

Melissa Sue Robinson (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)

conflict of interest by the article subject herself. To me, that spells delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unsuccessful runs for local office do not meet either political or general notability guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:30, 4 September 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 04:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per Bearcat and McClenon. I searched both names through numerous google passes, only possible reference I found was here. Subject doesn't meet
    WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:24, 11 September 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.