- 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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 08:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Ben Canham
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Ben Canham ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable individual. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. duffbeerforme ( talk) 12:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep The individual is obviously notable, else why would the article have been approved by an administrator after being nominated for speedy deletion. The references given satisfy WP:GNG. Qualitee123 (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Promotional article - when the External links out number the citations that is a red flag. The BBC is the best source, but really how is he notable? How does he stand out amongst the rest of the paranormal investigators? He collects dolls that he says are creepy, his parents died when he was a teenager and he says he feels them around him ... and? If this is all you got then it isn't even close to being enough to prove notability. Sgerbic ( talk) 06:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete fringe theorists require quality sourcing, not just fly by night spur of the moment coverage, we lack the latter here. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - has enough refs to reliable independent sources to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:BASIC - Epinoia ( talk) 00:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per WP:A7. — 烏Γ ( kaw) │ 21:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - definitley WP:PROMO, potential WP:G11. Kirbanzo ( userpage - talk - contribs) 19:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Keep Passes WP:GNG. Subject has substantial recognition in numerous reliable sources. Qualitee123 (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)You can only vote once. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 02:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete This is a WP:BLP1E situation at best. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 02:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - as WP:PROMO and not GNG. Lubbad85 ( ☎) 14:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 08:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Ben Canham
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Ben Canham ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable individual. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. duffbeerforme ( talk) 12:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep The individual is obviously notable, else why would the article have been approved by an administrator after being nominated for speedy deletion. The references given satisfy WP:GNG. Qualitee123 (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Promotional article - when the External links out number the citations that is a red flag. The BBC is the best source, but really how is he notable? How does he stand out amongst the rest of the paranormal investigators? He collects dolls that he says are creepy, his parents died when he was a teenager and he says he feels them around him ... and? If this is all you got then it isn't even close to being enough to prove notability. Sgerbic ( talk) 06:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete fringe theorists require quality sourcing, not just fly by night spur of the moment coverage, we lack the latter here. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - has enough refs to reliable independent sources to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:BASIC - Epinoia ( talk) 00:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per WP:A7. — 烏Γ ( kaw) │ 21:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - definitley WP:PROMO, potential WP:G11. Kirbanzo ( userpage - talk - contribs) 19:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Keep Passes WP:GNG. Subject has substantial recognition in numerous reliable sources. Qualitee123 (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)You can only vote once. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 02:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete This is a WP:BLP1E situation at best. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 02:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - as WP:PROMO and not GNG. Lubbad85 ( ☎) 14:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- 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.