Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Hollywood

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. czar 19:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Hollywood

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

Vanity autobiography of very non notable individual. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete membership in the organization he is part of is not enough to make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. We have tended to keep Emperors/Empresses in the major Imperial Court systems, which are charitable organizations. Bearian (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing in outcomes about keeping gimmicky fake titles from local charity balls. If there has been such a precedence it should be stopped due to a lack of notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Past afds. ~~Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tatianna (drag queen). Deleted.~~ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Kaiser (entertainer). Kept based on sources found. No Common outcomes. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No, WP:OUTCOMES doesn't seem to suggest we keep this and I'm very relieved to find that. WP:GNG should apply and in this case it doesn't seem to. Thincat (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, this person clearly doesn't have the sort of notability beyond blogs and local media to meet WP:GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I can't see how WP:OUTCOMES has any bearing at all. Nope. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2016 (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.