Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B.B Gunn

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B.B Gunn[edit]

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

references are entirely primary sources connected to subject, or are youtube videos. page appears to be entirely promotional in nature. magazine is just being launched this week [1], article can wait until notability established for either mag or person. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 05:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I previewed what the article would look like after removing the unsourced, poorly sourced (articles that don't say what they're purported to, a number of YouTube videos), and primary sourced content. There are 3 sources left: Lambda Literary, Sextronixxx, and SF Weekly. All three are specifically about the magazine (the only section to survive), and not any of these other many activities. Sounds like the magazine may be notable, but that would be a separate article; I don't see enough here to pass WP:NPEOPLE (and then there's WP:BLP, WP:PROMO, and WP:COI....). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete proper sourcing is not optional. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I am seeing some reliable sourcing within the article including S.F. Weekly, I do however have issues with the tone of this article which seems promotional. This can be fixed though. Tons of cruft needs to be removed, but RS nonetheless exist. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 22:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if we pare the article back to material that can be properly sourced (in the context of a BLP) there is very little left. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:53, 2 May 2014 (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.