Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Rimer

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Rimer

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

Passing mention in some outlets, but nothing substantial enough to pass WP:BIO. Blackguard 07:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Also valid for BLPPROD now, since someone removed the only reference about him on the page. But I'm not sure if that is just going to disrupt this AfD. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 07:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with C'est n'est pas un Dave that now we're here, we might as well see it through. A WP:BEFORE search ([1]) indicates a lack of in-depth or persistent coverage in third-party reliable sources sufficient for the subject of this filing to pass the minimum requirements of WP:ANYBIO. — fortunavelut luna 09:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is completely unsourced, and claims nothing that would entitle him to an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of enough sourcing to clear the WP:GNG. For the record, while his brother Spandy Andy Rimer's article technically had actual sources in it, they were also far too weak — consisting almost entirely of primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage that wasn't substantively about him — to support how advertorialized its content was, and hence I've speedied it. Bearcat (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2017 (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.