Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Lloyd Smith (2nd nomination)

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, default to delete per subject request. NW (Talk) 03:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Lloyd Smith[edit]

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

This article fails to show why this subject is notable. All of the links in the article are to primary sources of one sort or another. Generally fails WP:N. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a big question mark for BLP Shii (tock) 05:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolutely zero reliable sources, which are needed for basic notability. Bearian (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Addendum: There are some primary sources available (non-notable lawsuits, etc.), but those are about his business ventures, not about the subject. Bearian (talk) 04:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revise to comply with WP:BLP - Current sourcing is poor and the article in its present form reads like an attack page, but better sources are available. Sample:[1][2][3][4][5]. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 19:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You will need to add these to the article, then, as the article currently is not acceptable. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Revise as per Rrburke, deleting all unsourced contentious material, in addition to making any other changes required by WP:BLP. --Joe Decker (talk) 06:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Revise per above, taking into account WP:ATD.--Cyclopia ^talk 16:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a poorly sourced WP:BLP article (half of the links are dead and are making highly contentious claims!!) -- if the content is legit, this is a truly despicable human being, but the real problem here is verifiability and the shaky ground its on. JBsupreme (talk) 09:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rrburke above provided working sources. --Cyclopia ^talk 11:48, 4 March 2010 (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.