Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James John Bell


 * 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. --BDD (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

James John Bell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO has no real sources and reads like an autobiography. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and. Unscintillating (talk) 13:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)]
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: The nominator was blocked as of 06:52, 21 June 2013 for sock puppetry per a discussion "Disruptive creation of groundless AFDs, probable sockpuppetry". Crtew (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Removed the nominator's vote inside the nomination. Crtew (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete It's clear that the subject has written a lot, but not that he's been written about much. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I can't find any evidence this person even exists. Possible hoax. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unable to find reliable coverage.  Andrew327 21:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete we can't take chances on hoaxes. Supposed "cover story" link goes to a 404 error, link to the "communications firm" he was supposedly writing for until 2003 leads to a generic blog with generic entries, none of which are even close to 2003.  Probably a hoax, and if it isn't a hoax then it's someone so non-notable that even their existence can't easily be proved. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:53, 9 July 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.