Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Williams-Thomas

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Williams-Thomas

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

Puff piece. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising and the motivations shown here confirm it thus that's entirely enough for deleting as advertising in our own policies. SwisterTwister talk 21:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BLP and WP:GNG as entirely lacking any reliable sources. That it's puffery is surely no accident. Bearian (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A7 material while also being spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:35, 14 January 2017 (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.