Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darryl Foster


 * 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  05:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Darryl Foster

 * – ( View AfD View log )

GNews brings up a surprisingly large number of different individuals named Darryl Foster, but I couldn't find any significant independent coverage of this one, except for two pieces from fringe-y authors/publications promoting his brand of "ex-gay therapy" and a few trivial mentions where he's quoted in passing or used as a frame story to talk about something else. Fails WP:BIO per lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 08:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 08:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 08:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 *  Keep . The best sources are Lifesitenews.com, The Augusta Chronicle and Charisma magazine. I cannot figure out how extensive the coverage is inside the journal Charisma and Christian life, but it does not look very extensive from available snippets. Anyway, the three linked stories are enough significant independent coverage to meet WP:BASIC's requirements. Binksternet (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't consider LSN or Charisma reliable sources ("homosexuality's trap" etc. in the latter is a pretty clear indication that it's covered under the "extremist" part of WP:QS, and LSN's lack of reliability is known). –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see now that the Lifesitenews.com story does not approach the subject of homosexuality in a neutral manner, nor does the Charisma story. They both say, in effect, this guy is 100% right and there is no chance that his ideas are wrong. No opposing views are entertained. Binksternet (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources.--'' В и к и в и н д  T a L k  20:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. If the Augusta Chronicle article above is the best we have, it's not sufficiently deep or substantial coverage to justify notability - WP:BIO refers to notability being presumed for 'the subject of multiple published secondary sources', and notes that 'If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability'. The Augusta Chronicle article is only one source, and not of substantial depth, and the others mentioned above are not reliable (and potentially not independent of the subject). Carminowe of Hendra (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2011 (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.