Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Howson

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. Mkdw ^talk 21:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Howson

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

Radio and television personality whose claims of notability are resting entirely on primary and deprecated sources (Tumblr blogs, etc.), with no evidence of any substantial coverage in reliable sources even after a Google hunt. My conflict of interest sense is also tingling heavily here: the article is substantively identical (only a few minor wording tweaks) to a version that was posted twice in 2011 by User:Chowson13 and speedied as a poorly sourced autobiography both times, and while a different username created the article this time, that username matches the Twitter handle of a person whose feed consists largely of Chris Howson retweets. As always, I'm not opposed to future recreation if somebody can create a good and properly sourced article about him, but Wikipedia is not a public relations database on which people are entitled to have an article for promotional purposes. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 09:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 09:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 09:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 09:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete I get nothing significant on my searches despite him being a media personality. But if we delete I'm going to suggest given nom's comments that we wp:SALT due to repeated creations. Neonchameleon (talk) 03:05, 21 December 2013 (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.