Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desmond Conner


 * 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. Michig (talk) 07:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Desmond Conner

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I see no conceivable notability, fairly clear violation of BLP, and am amazed that this was ever accepted from AfC. . DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Following up to leave a notice, I see it was never properly accepted on AfC. The reviewer correctly declined it as not having sufficient sources, and then the original contributor accepted it by himself. Oddly, we have no way of preventing it, or even notifying the original reviewer about it, or catching it at NPP or anywhere else. I and others have been asking for this starting from long before this article was written.   DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: No evidence that the subject meets the WP:AUTHOR criteria, and the article has WP:BLP problems, with the editorialising in its final sentence. AllyD (talk) 08:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 16:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 16:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 16:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I concurr with the nominator. I would support WP:SPEEDY on this one.  There are no articles on Wikipedia that link to this author so it is not useful as a citation for other articles.  The claim in the article for notability leaves me with a "That's the best you got?" feeling and if it were all true and reliable, I still fail to see the notability for the author.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per all the above. Not notable at all, not even just one bit. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete "Not notable at all, not even just one bit" sums it up.LM2000 (talk) 04:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.