Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Eccleshall

: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. As Google search results alone do not satisfy notability, the arguments based upon them are afforded less weight; however, the potential for sources means there should be no prejudice against re-creation in the event that specific sources are indeed found. Shereth 18:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

=[[Chris Eccleshall]]=

:{{la|Chris Eccleshall}} ([{{fullurl:Chris Eccleshall|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Eccleshall}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Non-notable subject that fails WP:BIO criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Article serves as nothing more than an advertisement for the subject's guitar repair business. Fair Deal (talk) 10:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

:*This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak keep per gsearch, which convinces me that there is some level of notability for the individual/his brand of guitars; however, RS not found. JJL (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak keep my gsearch supports JJL's position ukexpat (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Please note that the results of a google search are not sufficient to judge whether or not an article (or the subject) is notable. Setwisohi (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

:*Comment: I know that, as will the reviewing admin. Google searches are however useful prima facie evidence, hence my weak keep. – ukexpat (talk) 00:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Most of the first hits in my Google search just showed a lot of sales pages, forums and blogs. Or Wiki mirrors. No third party sources that supported notability. Peter Fleet (talk) 02:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete advert. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: (1) The reason why I created the article was not to advertise. There is a website for that purpose, and Eccleshall does not need an advertisement anyway, being a one-man business with work booked up for several years. (2) Information about Eccleshall cannot be found easily in a Google search because he has not put himself about the Web, having kept his head down doing his job all his life. It is unfair to expect every notable topic to be supported at the desktop. It is possible for a notable person to have no Internet presence at all, and surely Wikipedia should be willing to fill such gaps. (3) There was no article pre-existing although other equally notable (or not) luthiers do have articles. He is a respected elder amongst many of the luthiers who do not have a deletion hanging over them. Beeflin (talk) 08:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

:*Comment: Worthy aims but the article has to demonstrate the WP:notability of the subject per WP:BIO, by reference to reliable sources. At the moment it barely does that. – ukexpat (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

: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.