Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Dinehart


 * 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. czar 20:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Stephen Dinehart

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



Contested PROD. Subject fails WP:GNG and does not appear to meet any SNGs. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - Subject does not pass GNG or any other notability inclusion threshold. There is zero significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The two refs in article are (1) a primary interview in an unreliable publication and (2) a primary interview in Gamasutra; both fromm 12-14 years ago. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  17:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. GNG is not passed. A lot of cleanup has already been done for PROMO issues. Heavy evidence of COI involvement in the article, including edits from the subject, here and on related articles. -- ferret (talk)
 * Delete lacking indepth third party coverage to meet WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. LibStar (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The person is talked about in several print sources, as a simple Google Books search indicates, but a) I can't be sure they're more than just brief mentions within the gaming context due to them being books beyond my reach at this time and b) they don't appear to be substantial enough to satisfy either the general or creative notability guidelines in that quick search. So, unfortunately this is yet another victim of an the limitations of bibliographical research in this modern age. PK650 (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2021 (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.