Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Deida

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. Seems enough evidence has surfaced that this is a notable BIO. Article of course needs improvements, marking it as such. Keeper ǀ 76 19:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Deida[edit]

Non notable spiritual leader/author, possible original research with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 13:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Google news and Ism schism (talk · contribs)'s bad faith nomination spree. — goethean ॐ 14:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am concerned as well about the AfD spree of the nom. Please slow down and work to improve articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good grief -- this article's been around for two years, with upwards of 150 edits, and nobody's been able to give a reliable third-party source? Ray Yang (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This author's work is of zero historical, academic and even popular significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.130.110.144 (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to have ample book references, though is work seems infrequently cited. With the news articles there appears ample material to meet notability requirements - Peripitus (Talk) 12:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - person is relevant (author), & not every article needs to be endless. A short appraisal of his work and the reception of his work should suffice. --Mwimmer (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deida is a notable sexologists. Books published by him are well known. I think we should improve this article rather than deleting it. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2008 (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.