Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Peel

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 keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 02:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Peel

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

Non notable person. Page created twice by SPA/COI. No significant coverage - there is an article in WSJ, apart from that there's not much. Rayman60 (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but he does appear to meet WP:NOLYMPICS. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: Yes, sorry, you're right, I didn't consider it from that angle.Rayman60 (talk) 10:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the best part is basically Olympian, the other contents re not particularly outstanding from there. SwisterTwister talk 01:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Presumed notable per WP:NOLYMPICS (source). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 19 June 2016 (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.