Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Gennoe

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. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Gennoe[edit]

The sources here are not about the subject, they are either directories which list the subject or media with the subject's byline. The article is the work of a single-purpose account and was recreated by said SPA immediately after speedy deletion. Google returns 228 unique hits of which all appear to be his own sites / myspace / blog or his byline. I did not find a single independent biographical source; I regard this as a pressing problem per WP:BLP. The number of hits on Google is a particular indication of lack of notability in that he is claimed to be an "author, journalist and logger" - that is a very small Google footprint for such occupations in this day and age. Guy (Help!) 13:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The references list articles and sleeve-notes he wrote, but notability would require evidence of somebody independent of him thinking him interesting enough to write about. The first and last refs are the same (his agency biog); the Harper Collins reference doesn't mention him. The notability standard for authors and journalists is WP:CREATIVE and he comes nowhere near that. JohnCD (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 08:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. The lack of secondary sources nails this one. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 08:44, 1 February 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.