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.--Wizardman 20:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Pierce[edit]

Tim Pierce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Previously nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Pierce with concerns about notability and sources; closed as no consensus. Over one year later the article remains unsourced except for the primary, unreliable sourcing from Google Groups. Delete. kingboyk 10:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Should a respectable encyclopedia care about him? No way. YechielMan 20:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• respectable? He was notable in those days, but surely someone can figure out a source. usenet didn't worry about details like that. DGG 05:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Attribution or Wikipedia:Verifiability or whatever it is that we're using today. --Xyzzyplugh 20:05, 1 April 2007 (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.