Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TJ Hoisington

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 05:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

T. J. Hoisington

[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)

Sources are not WP:Reliable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 22:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This orphaned AfD was never added to a daily logpage for some reason, so I found it from a database report -- shockingly, the article is still just as bad, and the argument made by the nominator is still correct! This seems like a pretty straightforward WP:VANITY article. jp×g 22:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. jp×g 22:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no evidence of notability. Looks prolific, but no non-trivial coverage found. BilletsMauves (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hello, jp, I was going to close this AFD but not only has the page been moved to a different title since this AFD was launched but the AFD tag was removed years ago. I'm no longer so certain about the appropriateness of reviving these forgotten AFDs when current editors are unaware of these discussions. Perhaps you should retag the articles under discussion when you relist the original AFDs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: That is a little awkward. When I did a few of these the other day, CyberBot I was insistent on adding AfDs notices to articles the minute I formatted ancient AfDs (even if I was just doing so in order to quickclose them). I guess now it's decided not to. What would you say to adding a notice to this article and relisting? jp×g 02:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, retagged. jp×g 04:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting formally just to give a bit more attention and to let a full week pass since JPxG's retagging.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Bilorv (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As a BLP the sourcing standards are higher. Wikipedia is not intended as a resume. Although most people want an article on themselves, usually promotional style articles are little more than pseudo biographies. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:21, 6 August 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.