Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Beckman (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Beckman[edit]

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

Couldn't find significant coverage in reliable sources. The entire article consists of a collection of quotes, from small local newspapers and "Horoscope Magazine". One such quote was "Renowned teacher and lecturer...Beckman teaches the scientific application of gems to balance harmony in life" (violates WP:NPOV, indicates the dubious nature of the sourcing) IRWolfie- (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable at this time and, as mentioned, the article promotes him. I was unable to retrieve the first dead URL link but I retrieved the second link, but it appears that it is minor. Considering that gemology is a science, I searched with Google Scholar but was unsuccessful. Google Books found several mentions, this provides a vague description of a book's text, one minor mention here (I should note that the block of text is promotional and the above pages suggest it is part of a directory) and another minor mention here. Considering that astrology isn't a true science, he wouldn't pass Wikipedia:Notability (academics) as an astrologist. SwisterTwister talk 02:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Closed as a unanimous keep in May 2008. I went back and took a look at that version to see if the article has deteriorated since. I'm not seeing what people were so sure about. Sourcing showing is trivial and the piece strikes me as promotional in intent. He seems to be a You Tube New Age Mysticism personality. I'm not seeing multiple independently published sources dealing substantially with him, however. As a such, fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails all notability requirements. Multiple Google searches turned up nothing even faintly promising in the way of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The sources used all fail WP:RS by a wide mile. Also appears to be promotional in nature. Can be deleted in its entirety. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't know how this page lasted so long. Sharing a guru with the Beatles, no doubt along with thousands of other devotees, is not worth mentioning and certainly not notable. Kooky2 (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2012 (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.