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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Napoleon[edit]

[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)

Subject not notable, article improperly sourced with no further available sources found. Google returns mostly e-commerce results for his book. Article itself appears promotional, with many citations to Napoleon's own writing that do not correspond to the content of the article in any meaningful way. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There doesn't appear to be meaningful amount of RS out there about the subject. Many of the sources for the article are from things written by the subject of the article, and the content derived from them doesn't really contribute anything to the article. Hog Farm (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minimal impact on discipline so far. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete There has not been sufficient reliable sources that deal with the subject significantly. Taewangkorea (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is not notable. Article looks promotional. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 17:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah I'm not finding much at all in the way of coverage here. Some reviews of a book of his, but those are not inherited. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:16, 19 November 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.