Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Dewayne Hughes

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. postdlf (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Dewayne Hughes

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

Nothing shows he's notable as either a martial artist (see WP:MANOTE) or geologist. Induction into martial arts halls of fame has long been considered irrelevant to WP notability.Mdtemp (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As far as I can tell, he doesn't meet any notability standards. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:PROF, with a h-index of 0. His book appears on no searches at all. News coverage is negligible. Fails WP:GNG, and as far as I can tell he fails WP:MANOTE as well. -- 202.124.88.7 (talk) 08:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability or significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 03:47, 22 July 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.