Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Bickel

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Bickel

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Subject does not appear to be the subject of in-depth discussion in multiple independent reliable published secondary sources. The awards he has won are not notable awards, and he does not appear to qualify as notable per any of our subject-specific guidelines (electors do not automatically qualify per WP:POLITICIAN, and I see no other grounds for him qualifying as notable). Sources here only show him mentioned in passing, a Google News search turns up next to nothing. A loose necktie (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, and Hawaii. Shellwood (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity article on a teacher, the awards are non-notable, perhaps recognition of a job well-done, but nothing that warrants an entry here. Oaktree b (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and Oaktree. This does indeed appear to be a vanity article. No evidence of notability. Sal2100 (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Presidential electors are not notable enough for Wikipedia articles on that basis per se — a person might have been a presidential elector and oh by the way also notable for something else, but people are not notable because presidential elector — and the sourcing here is half primary sources that aren't support for notability at all and half local-interest coverage in local-interest contexts that don't clinch a person as notable enough to have an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above Kazanstyle (talk) 09:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete presidential electors are not notable per se, and nothing else about him at all adds up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPROF, WP:NPOL, WP:GNG. We don't need this. Jacona (talk) 11:30, 22 July 2022 (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.