- 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 17:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Ernie Schenck
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Ernie Schenck ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Poorly sourced, promotional creation that has not been improved in nearly 10 years of existence. Nothing to show meeting WP:GNG and a WP:BEFORE source turns up a fair amount of self-promotion and some passing mentions. Melcous ( talk) 00:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir ( talk) 03:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Strong Delete If the article has not been improved in a decade, it can go. TH1980 ( talk) 04:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't see any reason for keeping this article. TheEditster ( talk) 10:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 17:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Ernie Schenck
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Ernie Schenck ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Poorly sourced, promotional creation that has not been improved in nearly 10 years of existence. Nothing to show meeting WP:GNG and a WP:BEFORE source turns up a fair amount of self-promotion and some passing mentions. Melcous ( talk) 00:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir ( talk) 03:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Strong Delete If the article has not been improved in a decade, it can go. TH1980 ( talk) 04:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't see any reason for keeping this article. TheEditster ( talk) 10:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- 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.