Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis M. Kelleher

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. v/r - T P 13:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis M. Kelleher

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

Article on a minor Washington lobbyist, with no actual sources (being a talking head on a couple of TV shows and being a source in a newspaper story don't count) and no indication of WHY he has an article. Calton | Talk 02:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep The Wikipedia Guide to Deletion directs nominators, "First do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the notability template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." There are numerous sources on his career that a simple google search will reveal. He is surely notable but the article surely has serious problems as well. --JumpLike23 (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. This is an evidence-based encyclopedia, not a faith-based one: if you have ACTUAL and not imaginary reliable sources attesting to this nobody's notability, bring them on. The burden of proof lies in showing notability, not in showing non-notability, and that's something you're supposed to have figured out a long time ago. See also WP:GOOGLEHITS.--Calton | Talk 13:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability, no assertion of notability, and the article's an unreferenced BLP. Original version was even more promotional, the work of a SPA. --Lockley (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a glorified CV and WP:ADVOCACY, with a tell-tale sign of such articles: multiple external links in the body of the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks notabilty Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2017 (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.