Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Willard (author)

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Willard (author)

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

Promotional article on barely notable author .Almost every references is from a blurb he wrote about himself for giving a presentation. Trivial awards, no book reviews in any really reliable source DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I did a full reference check: mostly bad, very few RSes actually about biographical details, lots of puffery, primary sources and questionable claims of notability. As well as being a bad article that should be cut to a bare stub under WP:BLP if kept, there's no evidence he's article-worthy - David Gerard (talk) 09:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here constitutes a strong claim of notability in and of itself — and the referencing is parked entirely on primary sources with the exception of a single article in a college newspaper, which means WP:GNG has not been met either. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the nom's analysis is as specific as can be, none of this actually comes close to genuine convincing and substance as an article. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no claim of notability; fails GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 28 August 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.