Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gareth Locke

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. ✗plicit 03:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Locke

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources, although I do see a lot of coverage in tabloid journalism like Hello! and the Daily Mail. So, I'm not seeing a WP:GNG pass on this one. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no significant coverage. The coverage that I found is pointless, similar to what this source says about the Locke couple joining their surnames together upon marriage as an example of bad news reporting compared to serious issues. SL93 (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with the nom no sufficient significant coverage in reliable sources to warrant an article.VirenRaval89 (talk) 13:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete typical famous-for-being-famous nobody celeb with typical tabloid/gossip junk coverage. The fact that he happens to be gay doesn’t change that, especially when he lives in a liberal western country in 2021. Dronebogus (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2021 (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.