Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Buettner

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. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Buettner[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Relevant AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blue_Zone

Extremely promotional and mostly unsourced BLP in longevity, a field under arbcom sanctions. Only purpose seems to be promoting the questionable theory "Blue Zone". Other than primary and associated sources produced by subject himself, the very few third party sources does not illustrate this individual's notability, with many of them either inaccessible or are of questionable reliability, failing verification. Created and significantly written by an SPA User:Cogentimperator 12 years ago along with the Blue Zone article (XTools: [1][2]), whose versions reads like advertisements pre-prepared or copied from elsewhere. Seems to be a case concerning WP:Lunatic charlatans that escaped scrutiny. Tsu *miki*⧸ 🌉 08:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. I share some of the nominator's concerns on the state of the article. However, that can be rectified by stubbing the article down. As for the subject of the article - even a cursory BEFORE shows that this Ted speaker (not TedX), author of multiple notable books (passing NBOOK), clearly passes GNG (and most certainly NAUTHOR as well). Icewhiz (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree it's promotional, I agree it's undersourced, but unfortunately I also think he pretty clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR as a minimum. Article needs fixing, not deleting. Hug^syrup 13:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well sourced enough to be notable. Calling the subject a lunatic, even on a talk page, seems to stretch BLP into the no-go zone. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You're probably right. Neither here nor there from the point of view of my argument anyway, so I'll withdraw that. Hug^syrup 13:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; it would be a good thing if somebody took the trouble to let some of the hot air out.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a huge fan of some of the keep rationales here, but Dan is notable. There is some coverage of his on Outside (magazine) [3], Star Tribune [4], City Pages [5], Business Insider [6], The Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier [7], The Globe and Mail [8], Friday Magazine (published by Al Nisr Publishing) [9], Zoomer Magazine (a part of ZoomerMedia) [10], The New York Times [11], NPR [12] and probably even more. And that is before searching for his book reviews! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2019 (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.