Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshus moloney

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. → Call me Hahc21 05:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joshus moloney[edit]

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

Non-notable student. The article is sourced entirely to a self-published website. I can't find any references on Google. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any evidence that he's notable, and the claims in the article don't seem like the sort of thing which would attract notable coverage. However, I have declined an A7 nomination on the grounds that it does at least make a credible assertion of importance (note that this is significantly less than notability). Olaf Davis (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also blanked a couple of sentences which seemed like BLP violations - if the article survives and sources are found they could be restored. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to suggest that this person meets WP:GNG, the only ref is a self published source apparently created by his classmates. Valenciano (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I am not sure if this is a student prank, a hoax, or merely student politics. Whatever it is, it is clearly NN. It does not even tell us what the ECT Tribunbal is. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delte Even the factuality of the article is questionable, but if factual it would still not make the subject notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; not even a close call. No coverage whatsoever in reliable sources. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable, and of dubious veracity. I can't even find any information about the ECT tribunal, so I am inclined to think it a hoax. BethNaught (talk) 09:06, 29 March 2014 (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.