Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mickey Robinson

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Robinson

[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)

Not notable, no reliable sources. The sources are: the subject himself, YouTube, YouTube again, The Christian Broadcasting Network, and a credulous interview from 2001 in Charisma Magazine, and a small-town local interest piece from the Brunswick, OH Post.

Description above largely copied from Bishonen's PROD, which had two endorsements before the article's creator AcceptJesus2020 canceled it. AfD needs to look at this article. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Bishonen and Bearian since they prodded it and endorsed the prod respectively. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, this was not meant as a canvass, just to make sure that they saw this to take another look. I won't do it anymore. -Crossroads- (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article creator removed the PROD template without any explanation on talk, which is their right.(Notability claims made in the removal edit summary by the creator.) As I said in the PROD, quoted in the nomination above, the sources are truly lousy, with no reliable secondary sources anywhere in sight. Bishonen | talk 18:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - as with the Prod, I don't see how this person is notable. Psychics and media (is that the correct plural ?) are dime a dozen. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Mediums" seems more natural to me in this sense of the word, and Wiktionary thinks so too. Bishonen | talk 21:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ANYBIO and there is nothing I can find that would satisfy WP:GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(With some regret) Delete -- People who have visions during near death experiences commonly then devote themselves to religion. It is inevitable that only the subject can recount what happened, which means that it is impossible for there to be independent sources. It seems to follow that the subject could only have a WP article if notable for other reasons. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2019 (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.