Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Avent

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. It's certainly possible for a historical figure of this type to meet our notability standards, but so far the evidence is lacking to show that he does in particular. RL0919 (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Avent

[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)

Non-notable businessman. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ANYBIO.4meter4 (talk) 00:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will be editing the main page and adding additional information that will hopefully address the concerns Bryan MacKinnon (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG. My search on Google Books turns up no significant coverage of this person. My search on Newspapers.com turns up a flew short burbs from Nashville newspapers about Avent's travels to China, but this is not sufficient for GNG. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Bryanmackinnon: Please make an argument for notability if there is one. Deletion discussion's aren't typically kept open for more than a week or two.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Basically the same rationale as that of 4meter4 I do not see in-depth significant coverage in RS. Furthermore why has this not been closed per WP:NPASR ? Celestina007 (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007, I think it was relisted to give Bryanmackinnon more time to present evidence of notability. However I suspect there has been no further response simply because there isn’t any more evidence to be found.4meter4 (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. "Executive" is too vague a term, we cannot assume it was a c-level. No other real claim to notability noted other than familial relations which do not transfer notability. Ifnord (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2021 (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.