Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Hepburn


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 13:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Dave Hepburn

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. WP:BLP of a writer and medical doctor, not adequately supported by reliable sources. This claims that he's named in the Guinness Book of World Records as "the highest scoring defence man in the longest hockey game in history", but fails to actually reference that at all or to specify which hockey game is involved -- and other than that, what we have is that he exists as a retired surgeon and writer, sourced to primary sources like two press releases from directly affiliated organizations and the program of a conference where he was a participant. The closest thing to a reliable source here at all, in fact, is a blog entry in which he's not the subject, but a provider of soundbite. As always, a person does not get a Wikipedia article just because he can be shown to exist, or because he gave soundbite about medical marijuana to a blogger -- he gets an article only if and when he's the subject of reliable source coverage in real media independent of his own publicity machine. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable as a doctor. Nothing shows that his columnes have recieved attention in reliable sources. The rest of the claims are a mix of primary sources and unverigfied. Nothing that even comes close to passing the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - he holds a "the highest scoring defense man in the longest hockey game in history". That should count for something surely. DarthVader (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If it were reliably sourced as actually true, then it might make some difference. But it counts for less than nothing if it's merely asserted without a valid source for the claim, however, because people routinely make false or entirely unverifiable promotional claims about themselves. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * For me, that record, as currently uncited, counts for nothing at all. No indication has been given as to which edition of Guinness World Records published this alleged record; keep in mind that the book has been published for over 60 years, and records go into and out of the book based on the editors' discretion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  14:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — UY Scuti  Talk  14:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — UY Scuti  Talk  14:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — UY Scuti  Talk  14:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * weak keep - i would say he squeaks by WP:Golden rule. The hockey thing is trivial to his notability. 03:23, 12 December 2016 (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.