Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Sudol

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Sudol[edit]

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

Likely even speedy and PROD material as there's simply not much and the best my searches found were some of the same listed links here and this simply has not changed much since starting in August 2011. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete – article seriously lacks WP:RS to meet notability (own website, blog posts). Forbes has an interview, which falls under promotional rather than notability. Lots of positive comments about him/school/book, none which meet RS. Want to say keep but cannot justify my opinion.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wouldn't call an interview "promotional," especially in Forbes. More like, a self-published source since he is the one stating the information. However, no matter what you want to call it, I don't consider interviews in depth enough to establish notability. I also cannot locate anything else that would satisfy WP:GNG.--CNMall41 (talk) 05:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The refs currently in the article are all either not reliable or primary sources. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources to indicate notability. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent secondary sources to show they pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:53, 31 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.