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.
Bio which appears to fail
WP:GNG. Article has existed since 2007, was PRODded a few months after creation but this was immediately contested by the author. There has been little improvement since then. Provided external links are to the subject's own business, an interview with the subject and an article which looks like it might be a decent source but which is paywalled. My searching turned up nothing better. (Note: Article was originally tagged for deletion by
Saintstephen000 without followup.) --
Finngalltalk 22:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Reeks of promotion, but this one might be notable. He's mentioned in this NYT obituary for another person as a "leading tracker"
[1] and I think this article is about him, but it's paywalled
[2]Oaktree b (
talk) 00:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)reply
and it veers into the fantastical, tracking Bigfoot
[3] (see the very bottom of the page (rest is cut off in my preview)) and
[4].
Oaktree b (
talk) 00:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Oaktree b: I
archived that link for you so we can see it. To see a paywalled link put the url in archive.ph and it will usually archive a full copy like this link. It works for
the NYT alsoLightburst (
talk) 21:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Yep, the ABA article is about Hardin. It's SIGCOV.
Oaktree b (
talk) 23:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Unreferenced BLP, no IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Literally nothing in this article is sourced and the sources above have very little and no info about the subject. The second source above is to a law journal, I don't think (could be wrong) its about them; either way a single source behind a paywall without V info would not pass N. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. //
Timothy ::
talk 23:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I think
WP:NEXIST must direct us to reject this type of justification to delete.
CT55555(
talk) 21:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)reply
And even if it didn't, the article has been improved since then, so this analysis is now obsolete.
CT55555(
talk) 21:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: Indeed the article was badly sourced, but that's not a reason to delete (it's a reason to improve). I've not spent enough time to say if it amounts to significant coverage, but plenty about him in Google books where he seems frequently identified as an expert in his field and someone that authors of outdoor books appear to have written about several times. This does suggest notability, even if I've not really dug into this deeply. Leaning keep.
CT55555(
talk) 21:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep He meets our notability guidelines. He is commonly referred to as an expert in his field.
1, and referred to as world renown,
2 and
3 and debunking a Bigfoot hoax
4. Police hire him as a tracking expert
5.There is more but we have enough to show that he is an expert in his field anybio#2.
Bruxton (
talk) 22:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)reply
One clear Keep this, considering the amount of
sourcessupporting the subject's
notability as a
person. The sources might not be international publications but are reliable and adequate in number. -
The Gnome (
talk) 08:06, 29 March 2023 (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.
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.
Bio which appears to fail
WP:GNG. Article has existed since 2007, was PRODded a few months after creation but this was immediately contested by the author. There has been little improvement since then. Provided external links are to the subject's own business, an interview with the subject and an article which looks like it might be a decent source but which is paywalled. My searching turned up nothing better. (Note: Article was originally tagged for deletion by
Saintstephen000 without followup.) --
Finngalltalk 22:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Reeks of promotion, but this one might be notable. He's mentioned in this NYT obituary for another person as a "leading tracker"
[1] and I think this article is about him, but it's paywalled
[2]Oaktree b (
talk) 00:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)reply
and it veers into the fantastical, tracking Bigfoot
[3] (see the very bottom of the page (rest is cut off in my preview)) and
[4].
Oaktree b (
talk) 00:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Oaktree b: I
archived that link for you so we can see it. To see a paywalled link put the url in archive.ph and it will usually archive a full copy like this link. It works for
the NYT alsoLightburst (
talk) 21:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Yep, the ABA article is about Hardin. It's SIGCOV.
Oaktree b (
talk) 23:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Unreferenced BLP, no IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Literally nothing in this article is sourced and the sources above have very little and no info about the subject. The second source above is to a law journal, I don't think (could be wrong) its about them; either way a single source behind a paywall without V info would not pass N. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. //
Timothy ::
talk 23:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I think
WP:NEXIST must direct us to reject this type of justification to delete.
CT55555(
talk) 21:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)reply
And even if it didn't, the article has been improved since then, so this analysis is now obsolete.
CT55555(
talk) 21:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: Indeed the article was badly sourced, but that's not a reason to delete (it's a reason to improve). I've not spent enough time to say if it amounts to significant coverage, but plenty about him in Google books where he seems frequently identified as an expert in his field and someone that authors of outdoor books appear to have written about several times. This does suggest notability, even if I've not really dug into this deeply. Leaning keep.
CT55555(
talk) 21:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep He meets our notability guidelines. He is commonly referred to as an expert in his field.
1, and referred to as world renown,
2 and
3 and debunking a Bigfoot hoax
4. Police hire him as a tracking expert
5.There is more but we have enough to show that he is an expert in his field anybio#2.
Bruxton (
talk) 22:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)reply
One clear Keep this, considering the amount of
sourcessupporting the subject's
notability as a
person. The sources might not be international publications but are reliable and adequate in number. -
The Gnome (
talk) 08:06, 29 March 2023 (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.