Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerard Bramwell Long

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 no consensus. v/r - T P 23:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Bramwell Long[edit]

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

Vanity autobiography of businessman, unsourced except to his own organization's website (whose name matches the name of the account which created the peacocky article). Orange Mike | Talk 06:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, as required by WP:BIO. While a BLPPROD by another editor was rejected as the article has one primary source, I have no idea why the PROD by myself was rejected as no reason was supplied. --Muhandes (talk) 09:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- explanation - mostly procedural; there were assertions enough of notability that I felt the article deserved an AfD discussion in order to be fair. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The question is not whether the article has sources, the question is whether the subject is notable. A news google archive search on "Gerard Long" + Alpha turned up a number of articles in reliable news sources.[1] This is a new article put up by an organizatin about its head. Obviously, the author of the article is clueless about how to source a Wikipedia article. That does not mean that the subject is not notable.I.Casaubon (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I began to read the news google hits, and began to think aobut changing my vote to delete, even though some of the articles are behind a pay wall, but then the Washington Post described him as "one of the stars of the church saving circuit" and quoted him at length. That, and the size of Alpha, seem to confirm notability.I.Casaubon (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plus an interview in The Christian Post. This article needs editing to remove the peacock aspect, and sourcing. Not deletion. Many sources are found by simply googling "Gerard Long" + Alpha. I.Casaubon (talk) 23:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is about significant coverage. The coverage in Washington Post is in passing. The interview in The Christian Post is mostly about the alpha course. I'm not saying there are no sources, but if you want to keep the article, you will need to dig them up and add them to the article. At the current state the article lacks coverage which s required to show notability by WP:BIO.--Muhandes (talk) 06:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2011 (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.