Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter John Ross
Walls of text and contentious arguments are not going to disguise the fact that the subject seems to thoroughly lack |significant coverage in |independent, reliable sources, and so fails  and . Almost every single reference and link given here and in the article are either self-generated content, circular references or passing mentions at best. And arguing about established guidelines about what is and isn't reliable or relevant is problematic at best. No prejudice to reversing my !vote, as always, if someone comes up with breakthrough evidence of notability
— User:FreeRangeFrog, 21:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:SIGCOV||WP:RS||WP:GNG||WP:CREATIVE (Wikipedia:Notability)