Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Reid


 * 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  18:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Daniel Reid

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A prolific author. But has anyone paid the amount of independent coverage needed to met BLPN? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss  fortune 16:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss  fortune 16:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss  fortune 16:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss  fortune 16:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. The link titled "Alarge collection of up to date articles and News on Daniel P Deid" is 404. Says it all, really. I know quackery reasonably well, this is not a notable quack. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete not enough reliable sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, couldn't find anything on Google News or Scholar.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 07:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * KEEP, Here is an updated archive of Media references and articles on subject. What is the point of deleting this page of a noted author on his field with over 20 main stream publications? What is the value to lose this article? KEEP!--Rickbrown9 (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I hate to pull out the big Wikipedia rubber mallet, but WP:GNG states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
 * These are...  ...not.  Not. Not.  Andy Dingley (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2018 (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.