- 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 keep. ( non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 03:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
James Hewitt
- James Hewitt ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability is not inherited. This person has done nothing of significance other than sleep with a royal. Cagepanes ( talk) 02:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 11. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 02:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep That's what they said about Diana too. Plenty enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 04:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. Sadly this man was big news for a long time in the UK and has been covered multiple times in reliable media. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - coverage exists and meets WP:GNG. If this coverage in reliable sources is really necessary and relevant from a journalistic point of view is a completely different question, but not our concern. GermanJoe ( talk) 14:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep -- Sufficiently notorious for us to keep. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep -- Lots of coverage; it is not relevant whether we think what he has done is significant. W. P. Uzer ( talk) 05:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep -- Sufficient major media coverage TheWarOfArt ( talk) 22:12, 14 August 2015 (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.
- 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 keep. ( non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 03:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
James Hewitt
- James Hewitt ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability is not inherited. This person has done nothing of significance other than sleep with a royal. Cagepanes ( talk) 02:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 11. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 02:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep That's what they said about Diana too. Plenty enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 04:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. Sadly this man was big news for a long time in the UK and has been covered multiple times in reliable media. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - coverage exists and meets WP:GNG. If this coverage in reliable sources is really necessary and relevant from a journalistic point of view is a completely different question, but not our concern. GermanJoe ( talk) 14:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep -- Sufficiently notorious for us to keep. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep -- Lots of coverage; it is not relevant whether we think what he has done is significant. W. P. Uzer ( talk) 05:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep -- Sufficient major media coverage TheWarOfArt ( talk) 22:12, 14 August 2015 (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.