Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J.L. Ch. Abineno

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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J.L. Ch. Abineno[edit]

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

Prod was denied. Article is made up almost entirely of one first-hand source and is poorly written to the point that it would have to be remade anyway. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ?No notability apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Appears to be part dust-jacket bio and part summary of the contents of the subject's book. LordVetinari (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete .. please. It's a terrible article, the subject is not notable at all. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I note that nobody above has made any attempt to address the hundreds of potential sources found by the Google Books search linked in the nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well maybe, but why is there so little in GS and GN? Xxanthippe (talk) 09:47, 19 May 2011 (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.