Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Heckendorn

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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Heckendorn[edit]

Subject does not meet notability guidelines. Article is an unsourced biography of a living person. Bkellihan (talk) 05:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 05:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 05:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 05:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fix The article is a real mess. But google news indicates the subject is very notable [1]. And there's more on Google Books [2]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm not able to find notable sources in your links. All of the links I can find on Google (Web/News/Books) are to articles written by him, his personal blog, his facebook page, the wikipedia page, and a few short articles that mention him. This doesn't meet the "Substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" guidelines for notability.65.114.151.70 (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article [3] is one of many examples of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The notability strikes me as being a slam dunk. I have no idea why this is at AfD other than that the article needs quite a bit of work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found that exact article in my initial search, but that single article plus the few others I was able to find don't constitute significant coverage. You can't prove notability by citing a single source and stating there are many. Can you provide substantial verifiable sources to back up notability? In my searches I've come across a few articles here and there, but the bulk of what's out there are blog posting and articles written by the subject. I just can't find enough verifiable sources to reasonably substantiate general notability. Bkellihan (talk) 05:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Passing mentions =/= significant coverage, and actual references instead of raw Google links would be more persuasive. --Calton | Talk 18:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? He wasn't using Google as a reference. He was linking you to Google books showing that Heckendorn has been published. He has written his own books, and those books have been reviewed. I love WP deletion-mongers. They've already made up their mind before read the discussion. Thehondaboy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Keep and send to WP:CLEANUP. CoM is not mandated to do the improvement, only need only note that such sourcs are availbale with a diligent search: Salon, 20Minuten, Ventura County Star, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, News.com.au, Brisbane Times, I4U, Bit Tech, Ars Technica, Wall Street Journal, Popular Science, Webster's, et al, all offer enough more-than-trivial coverage to meet WP:GNG and ensure the article is properly encyclopedic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and send to WP:CLEANUP Thehondaboy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 28 June 2009 (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.