Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brainhell

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 keep. Davewild (talk) 07:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brainhell[edit]

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

Unfortunately, neither "Brian Hill" nor "Brainhell" appears to have received the sort of coverage required for an article. One article about one, one article about the other, but I found no reliable, independent sources besides those. In addition, no reliable source has publicly connected "Brian Hill" and "Brainhell". It is not the job of Wikipedia to connect the two. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple searches found nothing aside from the third which found this news article and it confirms some of the article's information but it's not significant or in-depth. So with this, I think it's better to delete the article as it seems he never got much attention but I guess for what it is worth he could be mentioned in the future in a relating article (i.e. ALS). SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - SF Chronicle from 2005, SF Chronicle upon his 2008 death, Journal of Media and Culture 11(6), Common Knowledge volume 8 (not a lot in this one), Globe and Mail, profiled in this als-cure.com report. It's on the edge of Weak Keep and Keep for me. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, there are few references that certainly make subject to meet notability, it needs to be rewritten to actually add more value. However, I am not sure if people will search for the subject in the future.Amitbanerji26 (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Globe and Mail and ALS-Cure sources cited by Rhododendrites make the connection between this person's online and offline identities, and they are WP:RS. Those, the 2005 SF Chronicle coverage, and the obituary combined meet WP:GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2015 (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.