Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Oswald

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. Sr13 07:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Oswald

Bob Oswald (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Subject of article fails WP:ATT and WP:BIO. Cannot find any independent significant sources and cannot find his books at the major outlets Nv8200p talk 21:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. An arcane subject (runes?) if ever there was one, and there are no independent sources - indeed, one of the external links was added by Runemaker (talk · contribs), who may have a COI. Shalom ^Hello 03:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Borderline noteability. Author of the article hasn't been online since the 30th April, a shame as it would be nice to hear her opinion. Inclusion of a fairly good quality informal picture seems odd on an article of such small size. We must remember to put that forward for deletion to if this is indeed deleted. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 16:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, can't see how he meets WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - I tired looking for sources and his books, couldn't find any. Nothing wrong with an arcane subject, but at this point subject doesn't seem Notable enoughStatisticalregression 02:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Bearian 19:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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.