Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jakub Tenčl

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.  JGHowes  ^talk 01:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jakub Tenčl (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)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Very very poor referencing. Mostly books. Only one actual ref and that doesn't assert nowt. Possibly A7. scope_creep^Talk 23:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any references that qualify as third-party reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There's lots of books and tapes by him but insignificant coverage about him. No reliable sources that I see. Bearian (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Mostly all information found on him is his own writings or tapes. He seems to be notable in his own mind. The article also is missing inline citations and is very self serving. VViking_TalkEdits 17:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sources are not clear enough Catorce2016 (talk) 07:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is an article on cs.wiki but it is almost entirely referenced to self-published sources, just like this one. No evidence of independent notability. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Doesn't present enough notability. Barca (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Perhaps this could have been a speedy deletion. Edwardx (talk) 14:11, 27 September 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.