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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasdelete.Ron Ritzman (talk)01:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zorek Richards (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) – (View log)

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

BLP with poor sourcing and no evident notability. Was speedied previously, but there is at least a claim of significance. Unfortunately, I could not find any reliable independent sources to back up those claims.RL0919 (talk)06:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Found no credible source. (not counting Facebook and others) --Stone (talk)08:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete could not find anything either. --Triwbe (talk)09:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Thisautobiographical article lacksreliable sources, does not establishnotability and violates theneutral point of view. User has established a second account for religious advocacy.Cullen328 (talk)19:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in thelist of Authors-related deletion discussions.--Jclemens-public (talk)19:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.jsfouche ☽☾Talk01:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't meetWP:AUTHOR,WP:BK, orWP:BIO. His nearest brush with fame appears to be the time a U.S. Senator delivered a personal put-down that attested to the subject's non-notability.Qworty (talk)00:09, 31 December 2010 (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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.