Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael heppell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 07:36, 6 February 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 07:36, 6 February 2022 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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. Cirt (talk) 03:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael heppell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
I am not seeing secondary source coverage you'd see with a notable author. The article is somewhat promotional as well, with lots of peacock terms. Gigs (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete When none of the sources are independant, that's a good indication the subject is not notable. Edward321 (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete article appears to be self-promotional article created by a SPA. No secondary sources of notability. MilborneOne (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:14, 2 June 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.