Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Frank (producer)

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Frank (producer)

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

Non-notable short film/advert producer. Fails WP:GNG. Only mentions in Googlenews are in PR handout from his own company. Copy originates from "cuckoo" copy that was placed wholesale in an different article on Billy Frank, which is a brief article on a former cricketer who passes WP:GNG and WP:ATH. Recent WP:PROD of this one was removed, perhaps inadvertently, by editor who suggested consulting Googlenews for mentions: done, as mentioned above, to little effect. Johnlp (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- per well-researched nomination by Johnlp. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nomination. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. Nothing in the article stands out as a claim of significance that would justify the existence of an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2013 (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.