Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Godman


 * 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. While several editors have asserted notability, reliable independent sources haven't appeared. If someone would like this userfied to bring it up to snuff, drop me a line with a link to this AfD. Also, please remember civility and WP:AGF are important in all wikipedia discussions. Fabrictramp |  talk to me  21:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

David Godman

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

Non notable religious journalist, no reliable sources, info from personal website. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — John Z (talk) 07:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep in light of 's nomination spree. Godman is a highly notable proponent of Nisargadatta (also nominated for deletion by Ism Schism). &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note This is really low to say that I nominated an article for deletion that I did not. Please, keep to topics relevent to this discussion and do not make false accusations against me. These do not further your arguements for keeping this article and are strongly misleading. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply I nominate non notable religion related article for deletion. Also, please do review my history and you will see that I have a history of nominating non notables for deletion. David Godman is one such non notable. If you believe otherwise, then please provide proof of notability by citing reliable sources. The article has none. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Onus is on people who like the article to provide reliable sources to document notability. So far, those have not shown. Ray Yang (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Yay for rampant deletionism! &mdash; goethean &#2384; 22:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment He probably satisfies the less restrictive WP:CREATIVE, based on some googling of other topics I did today, will probably do some more checking tomorrow, but may be unable for a few days after.John Z (talk) 07:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete until third party WP:RS showing notability can be found. ~ priyanath talk 03:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. - House of Scandal (talk) 04:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — John Z (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Needs reliable sources. As "simple" as this sounds... he's written a lot of books. Quiet a few. -- there has to be some information about this guy -- unless there all vanity press... CindyAbout /T/P/C/ 03:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Go to Google Books, go to Google News & Archive, go to Google, try different keywords, and when sources are not online go to your local fucking library and read them. Make it work, because authors don't need people kicking them around after all the hard hours they have spent getting their words just right. Sincerely, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your comments are neither civil nor productive. Written references are acceptable. Why don't you go to the library rather than swearing at your fellow editors? - House of Scandal (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do, and I have, which is how I and another saved the Alan Cabal article, but it is pandemic around here that editors nominate for deletion without thinking, vote without researching, and ignore wholly these things called libraries which previous generations seem to have "built." Manhattan Samurai (talk) 23:19, 20 July 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.