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. RL0919 (talk) 05:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Aguiar[edit]

Anthony Aguiar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This is an autobiography. The subject has won no awards, has had only a series of minor media appearances, and does not appear to have been the subject of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. Vanity page. A loose necktie (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. J947 ^(c), at 03:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. J947 ^(c), at 03:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. J947 ^(c), at 03:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; absolutely nothing of any value to GNG on the web. J947 ^(c), at 03:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is good reason Wikipedia has a policy against atubiographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In terms of qualifying for a Wikipedia article, the notability test is not the things the article says, but the quality of the sources that can be shown to support the things it says. For example, a person is not "notable" for appearing in a film if your source for the claim is a video clip of the film's trailer on a streaming platform; a person becomes notable for appearing in a film if the appearance led reliable sources (i.e. media) to write and publish journalistic coverage about the appearance. But this is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and even on a Google search there's literally nothing better out there. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn: we are not a place where people are entitled to have an article about them just because they exist, we are an encyclopedia where an article becomes earned by passing a notability criterion and receiving media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 14:30, 12 December 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.