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. BigDom talk 16:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Wilton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Completely unsourced BLP. The only external link is to his own website. I cannot find any evidence that this person meets our notability criteria. --B (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article is not properly cited, and the external link is not very credible, as it seems like a personal website. By running a Google search on the query "Nicholas Wilton", I see little to no sources that show this person is considered as notable.  Angelo  ♫  22:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Judging by the creator's other contributions, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that it's a vanity page. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable. Unable to verify information in independent reliable sources. Fages (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2011 (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.