Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Richardson (presenter)

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Richardson (presenter)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer and television presenter, which as written does little more than assert that he exists — and cites not one shred of reliable source coverage to verify the fact. Anything listed in his "filmography" would be enough to get him into Wikipedia if it were sourced well enough to satisfy WP:GNG, which is why I'm not just speedying it A7, but none of it is significant enough to give him an inclusion freebie in the absence of adequate sourcing. And I just ran a Google News search, which didn't turn up any better sourcing, Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I would've frankly PRODed as this is applicable and nothing suggests better satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 21:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom due to lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Donniediamond (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Couldn't locate any video game oriented reliable sources, despite that apparently being his focus. -- ferret (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2016 (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.