Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Clements (Writer)


 * 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.  Sandstein  12:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thomas Clements (Writer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Looks like a decently sourced article at first glance. However, upon further review, every single source was written by the subject of this article. It is practically a promotional with no indication of passing GNG. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not quite, the first source was written by a third-party reviewer. However, the others were written by the subject, which is true. Ylevental (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018!  (distænt write)  02:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018!  (distænt write)  02:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018!  (distænt write)  02:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018!  (distænt write)  02:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete One third-party review is not enough to show a book is notable, let alone to show the writer of the book is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2018 (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.