Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brackins (2nd nomination)

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. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Brackins

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

Fails WP:BIO for lack of substantial independent coverage. Independent coverage in the references provided is limited to a few lines in a local publication concerning his unsuccessful candidature for the US Congress; this does not suffice for notability. (Note: the Daniel Brackins who was the subject of the earlier AfD, a martial artist, is apparently a different and also not notable person.) Sandstein 20:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Insufficient coverage to demonstrate notability under WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Nsk92. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A couple of mentions in local news, but no sign of significant coverage in independent reliable sources sufficient to meet WP:BIO. --Qwfp (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant presence in Google news nor Google scholar; a long list of "publications" means nothing if there is no evidence that they have made an impact. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google search indicates a large web presence with notable impact in libertarian circles as well as local news publications. He was also cited by a libertarian think tank [1] Iconoclast2007 (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)— Iconoclast2007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Can you provide links to this "large web presence" where it manifests itself in substantial coverage by reliable sources? The link you provide, [2], is neither: it's a brief citation in a blog. Sandstein 20:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Numerous entries found when searching "Daniel Brackins" economics [3] Found at least two papers [4] and [5]. His website also seems to have notable impact with over 600 followers [6]. Gives talks to group on economic crisis with introduction by Ken Schoolland, a known libertarian economist [7] -- Yoshitora2001 (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)— Yoshitora2001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Google hits (see WP:GHITS), websites and (self-published web-)publications in any form do not confer notability. See WP:BIO for the relevant criteria. What matters is whether other people have taken note of him and written enough about him in reliable sources to give us the basis of a verifiable article. Sandstein 20:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article makes me think there's enough to go on. "notable impact with over 600 followers"? If they were all top-flight politicians (presidents, PMs, etc) maybe. 600 odd bods, no. The appearance of Single Purpose Accounts does nothing to help the case for survival, and if carried on may in fact hinder it. Be advised. Peridon (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2010 (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.