Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Brock

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 Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Brock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to be the recipient of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Steps were taken WP:BEFORE this nomination to locate said coverage but were not successful. Recommending deletion until evidence of such is presented. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The nontrivial mentions I've been able to locate online are listed below. There are a few secondary sources, but the ones that are available are mainly just local news websites; I wouldn't think they are enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. It would appear that he fails WP:NARTIST as well; it doesn't seem as though any of his works meet either of the criteria established there. Cthomas3 (talk) 06:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Famousbirthdays.com is not a reliable source per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_153#Is_famousbirthdays.com_a_reliable_source_for_personal_information. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I thought it was reliable by including it. I merely did so for the sake of being a non-trivial mention that I happened to find in my searches. Cthomas3 (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Searching was difficult due to the commonality of the name, but there does not appear to be sufficient in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG, and doesn't pass WP:NAUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.