Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Conneally

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Conneally

Paul Conneally (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notability. Though this article was created in 2005 it still shows no indication of subject's notability per

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 22:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment I've just added 5 references to him in

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 00:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• delete as he seems to not have written anything published and 4 of the 5 references are behind a lock and the only one that is accessible seems very local resulting in no claim to fame that I can discern. --MarSch (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per arguments of
  Yumegusa and MarSch. Will in China (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:52, 10 April 2009 (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.