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. postdlf (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph romano

[edit]

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

setting aside the promotional problems, i cant find any indication of actual notability. deputy sheriff and ceo of a nonnotable company are not enough. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Appears to be an upstanding citizen, but there's nothing there that sets him that much apart from the crowd. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are plenty of hits on Google, but it doesn't look like they're the same person. ^King Jakob _C2 11:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable person....William 13:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could have been prodded, since it's not even clear what he is claimed to be notable for. --MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. kikichugirl ^inquire 21:38, 24 July 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.