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 without prejudice. Nominator's rationale is sound but I really think we need more then one view to call this a "consensus" so I'll treat this as an uncontested PROD and restore in on request. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old Man Murray[edit]

Old Man Murray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article appears to fail WP:WEB. Current sourcing consists of no reliable sources, and a whole bunch of primary sources, forum threads, and people's forum profiles. A search online and on Highbeam Research yielded nothing in the way of non-trivial reliable sources to demonstrate sufficient notability to retain the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2011 (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.