Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Steinberg (author)

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. Sandstein 10:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Steinberg (author)[edit]

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

I'm not entirely sure if he's notable as my searches found nothing noticeably good and although the article is somewhat acceptable with the current sources, I'm not seeing anything better. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't citing any reliable source coverage at all, but is resting entirely on primary sources, namechecks of his existence in directories, and his book's buy-me page on Amazon.com. And about half of the references here are dead links, to boot. That's not the kind of sourcing it takes to get a person into Wikipedia — he has to actually be the subject of substantive coverage in reliable sources to earn a Wikipedia article, and does not get an automatic inclusion freebie just because it's possible to verify that he exists. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if his sourceability ever gets better than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the guy exists. The guy writes. The guy is not notable (as per searches). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:29, 16 October 2015 (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.