Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Helvin

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Helvin

[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)

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NAUTHOR. The only hit I could find was for an edition he self-published of [1], a possibly notable 16th century treatise on magic. He apparently appeared in some capacity in [2], but I don't subscribe to the magazine so don't know what it says about him. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. When you write the word 'hit' do you mean you have only checked on the internet? I have used physical sources like books and magazines. Do they count too? Old and deaf (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC) — Old and deaf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Struck as a contribution by a confirmed sockpuppet.[reply]

Yes, I have only used the Internet, and yes, reliable sources in print do count per WP:NEXIST. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not finding anything to substantiate Helvin's notability. The sourcing on this article is very weak, several ref's do not even mention him, and the blog thread is a real stretch. Does not meet notability criteria for WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Netherzone (talk) 12:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Subject has requested deletion per WP:BIODELETE via OTRS. For those with access, see ticket:2020082210002771. I have not personally reviewed the article and have no position on this AfD. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even apart from the subject's reasonable request, this should have been deleted long ago as non-notable . DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIODELETE and OTRS ticket:2020082210002771 I have not reviewed the ticket since I do not have access but i assume based on ElHefs statement that it was a request by the subject 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2020 (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.