Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert M. Owens

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert M. Owens

[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:GNG and WP:NPOL. Sourced almost exclusively by primary and non-reliable sources. WP:BEFORE search failed to produce any sourcing that would satisfy the notability guidelines. Sal2100 (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom: fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 22:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find no substantial independent sources, although some of the articles from The Vindicator are dead links. I did find the Vindicator article for ref #6 and it spoke only of an issue related to him claiming to be an Independent based on past voting. I also find that the detail around the lawsuit against him is WP:UNDUE. Lamona (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and there isn't anything that indicates that the subject is notable outside of his campaign, which itself does not appear to be particularly notable. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:09, 23 February 2022 (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.