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. Secret ^account 23:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Peckham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotionally created by the subject and speedy deleted thrice previously, the first time as G12 copyvio and the second and third as A7 no significance indicated. The article in its current form is more beefed-out and I think warrants an AfD discussion. Quite simply, regardless of the claims made in the article, the subject doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. There are plenty of hits on Google but they're all twitter accounts, facebook, linkedin etc. There is one questionable source, essentially a flashy bio page here and I've found a few copies/mirrors of that, but nothing else significant. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete I can only find one or two reliable sources that talk specifically about the article subject, which isn't enough to establish notability. 19:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. A Google News search for ("dominic peckham") turned up exactly one article, containing one sentence that mentioned Peckham. Google searches for ("dominic peckham") yielded nothing indicative of notability: a few news articles mentioning him, but nothing with any kind of independent in-depth coverage. The closest thing I found to coverage was a Scotsman piece, already cited in the article; and that gave much more coverage to the choir than to Peckham. Fails WP:GNG. Ammodramus (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Ammodramus. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2013 (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.