Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Cool

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Cool[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)

Non-notable individual who appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO. BEFORE searches do not return sufficient reliable sources. And the sources that are cited in the article (to the extent they can be located at all) are either (1) articles that the individual appears to have simply written (and not about the subject himself) or (2) are self-published/too closely affiliated with the author to warrant an article. Also it appears that the article was created by someone who may be associated with the subject, so that also raises some eyebrows. DocFreeman24 (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find barely any sources, and the only reliable one is this which only mentions him in passing. His personal website now says he is mainly a photographer, not a weather forecaster. Wgullyn (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:41, 23 January 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.