Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Seaborn (2nd nomination)

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. ✗plicit 23:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Seaborn

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The only references are to primary sources. A quick Google check comes up with articles and books that they have written but not articles about them from reliable sources. Gusfriend (talk) 23:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Gusfriend (talk) 23:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, and South Carolina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (1) BLP without adequate referneces (2) This seems to be little more than a one-man ministry, though possibly employing a couple of other counsellors. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and because (a) we are not a soapbox, (b) we are not a free webhost, and (c) we are not a vehicle for spam. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is not notable and the article makes no support for inclusion in Wikipedia. IrishOsita (talk) 03:35, 3 June 2022 (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.