Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Relojo-Howell

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Relojo-Howell

[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)

Sources do not demonstrate that he is notable Lyndaship (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Pi (Talk to me!) 18:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable blogger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retain see the sources and the subject meets notability guidelines. —80.189.245.100, (talk • contribs) 18:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of WP:NPROF, only one book as far as WP:NAUTHOR, and I'm not seeing GNG. WP:TNT also applies to this promotional and poorly-sourced article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retain Subject has been quoted on Metro_(British_newspaper), Huffpost, BBC. On the issue of book, since when does a blogger need to have a book to be on Wikipedia? —80.189.245.100, (talk • contribs) 18:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)— 80.189.245.100 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.