Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Garguillio


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 22:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Garguillio

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Self-promotional, vanity article which, despite its many links, has no actual reliable sources to establish notability. Boffob (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * very weak keep While I agree that the artice feels a bit like self-promotion aqnd vanity, and most sources in my search are blogs that address his work, I did find ... as well as a lot of podcast and video stuff. Its minor... but its there.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.
 * Comment: all the links you posted are either a press release (not acceptable to establish notability), a self-published message and something without any reference to Daniel Garguillio at all. Web presence is not the same as notability.--Boffob (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Can't find anything that shows notability. There's not even a mention or claim on his own website. The blogs and such show that the man really exists, which I don't doubt, but notable? No.   SIS   20:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - there aren't reliable sources about the subject. -- Whpq (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: The subject has been a guest on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory (which led to my writing the article in the first place), as well as many other real-world media outlets. He is a well-known, if controversial, figure in the paranormal investigations field. DaimonHellstorm  —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC).


 * 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.