Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darren LaCroix

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. Jenks24 (talk) 12:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darren LaCroix[edit]

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

Spammy self-promotional article of non-notable speaker. A couple brief mentions in mainstream newspaper articles, but most of the sources are press releases or personal websites. —Chowbok ☠ 19:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Yes, it is not written in a formal tone, but it does have ample reliable sources. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and send for cleanup, notability was asserted, the prose just needs to be reworked to conform to our article standards. - Mailer Diablo 01:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – AFD is not cleanup. As Electriccatfish2 pointed above, multiple reliable sources are available. — Bill william compton^Talk 13:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 02:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that the article was originally frought with promotion and hyperbole, but also agree that such is quite often addressable through regular editing... so I performed some of the required cleanup.[1]. Article is now much beter and presented in a neutral and encyclopedic manner. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:02, 10 July 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.