Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Chisholm
- 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Daniel Chisholm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reliable sources to establish notability. Kelly hi! 20:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Lacks coverage needed to establish notability. The article reads like a linkedin profile rather than an encyclopedia article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Article makes no assertion as to why this individual might be notable in his own right, only that he has been associated with notable companies and individuals. "An organization may be notable, but individual members (or groups of members) do not "inherit" notability due to their membership." Rubiscous (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2012 (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.