Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robbie Blair

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 SPEEDY DELETE by Jimfbleak. NAC as AfD was left open. GregJackP Boomer! 21:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Blair[edit]

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

Appears to be a BLP autobiography. First glance looks like it fails basic notability. References look quite weak as well. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability, refs are mainly self-generated, Amazon spamlink doesn't even have a purchase price. I would have speedied this if it hadn't been afded Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have speedied it, but there's a claim of notability with the awards and such. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 12:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Jimfbleak. GregJackP Boomer! 16:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with nominator that this individual lacks notability. Sources are self-published or autobiographical in nature. Heck, I have a better claim to notability than this individual. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. --kikichugirl ^inquire 03:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I thought about speedy deleting it when I first saw it, but decided to wait to see if it developed into something more substantial, but it did not. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tek022 | _Comments? 06:52, 25 July 2013 (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.