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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. Additionally, requests to delete and move AfD pages can be discussed at MfD. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Pulsifer (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)

Perhaps I'm going mad, but I'm sure I read somewhere that a Wikipedia article cannot be obtained through Wikipedia editing alone? That's all Pulsifer seems to be notable for. The phrase "minor media celebrity" sums it up beautifully. Launchballer 18:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5th nomination! Unbelievable. Could someone please: delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Pulsifer (3rd nomination); move Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Pulsifer (2nd nomination) to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Pulsifer (3rd nomination) and move Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Pulsifer 2 to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Pulsifer (2nd nomination). I am considering whether or not I want to proceed with this.--Launchballer 18:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep "I'm sure I read somewhere" doesn't cut it as a reason to delete. Get back to us when you actually have a link to policy. The sources such as Time and USA Today seem quite solid and if they found the subject notable, we have no reason to differ. Andrew (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just spent at least half an hour trying to find it. I know I read it on Wikipedia, but I can only assume that it's been gotten rid of or reworded. I am going to withdraw this, but my AfD movement request in my second comment stands.--Launchballer 21:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep No valid reason for deletion. Wikipedia contributors have the same notability requirements as anyone else, and this AfD plainly fails WP:BEFORE. If you're not sure about a policy, ask at the help desk first: even if there were grounds for deletion, the world's not going to end if this article persists an extra day. Also, there's a lot of incorrectly numbered deletion discussions for different articles, and correcting them doesn't appear to be considered a priority (renumbering is likely to break links, disrupt logs, etc). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:47, 9 June 2014 (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.