Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dion Hamill

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) 15:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dion Hamill[edit]

[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)

Fails WP:NBIO. No references provided, no SIGCOV on google, his own website is down. Rogermx (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence he passes NARTIST. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete that an article sourced only to the subject's own website has survived more than 10 years is very disconcerting. We need much better procedings against such total lack of reliable sourcing, especially for articles on living people. Wikipedia has clearly grown to fast for us to present such major abuses of the system.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it violates all basic guidelines. Ugbede (talk) 7:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete, not close to being notable. Pikavoom (talk) 07:33, 30 June 2020 (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.