Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Blackwell


 * 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. Consensus is sourcing quality is not at the level required Star   Mississippi  15:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Michael Blackwell

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails Notability (people). The only references cited are primary sources from BCHfamily.org. I have failed to find any reliable sources providing significant coverage of Michael Blackwell or his business/ministry. SVTCobra 18:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 21:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Religion,  and North Carolina. SVTCobra 18:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * He is mentioned in this news article from 2008. I have now added it as a source. Seckends (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment One further source found, unsure how reliable/notable it is, the Triad Business Journal. . Might just barely pass the notability sniff test. Oaktree b (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  15:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources are not adequate. Person is not adequately notable. Pete unseth (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, He has a notable position and sources are fair. Davidgoodheart (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Delete - as it stands he's got 2 sources. Need 1 more, and not from his place of employment as the majority are. As it stands, topic doesn't pass GNG for inclusion. Megtetg34 (talk) 06:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete the quality of the sources is not adequate--they are basically promotional notices.  DGG ( talk ) 07:39, 22 May 2022 (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.