Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David John Pearson


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 01:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

David John Pearson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This appears to be an autobiographical piece, with no accessible reliable sources and no verifiable demonstration of notability. The article was created in 2011 by User:Catscar, who has edited almost no other pages; expanded by User:Ozyman0308 - similar editing history; and by IPs User:24.207.116.79 and various other IP addresses, all in British Columbia, again similar editing history. This all strongly suggests that the article is an autobiographical puff piece of no lasting merit or importance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - autobiography or not, the sources list is a mess. More than half of those should be in a publications list or something - they are primary sources with regard to the subject. They were written by the subject, they are not about the subject. Some might be used to verify certain claims within the article but it's difficult to differentiate between primary and secondary sources at the moment. On that basis, I'd probably support deletion (notability not being remotely clear) until significant coverage in multiple reliable sources can be specifically identified. Stalwart 111  11:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  13:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Whether this is an autobio or not is irrelevant for AFD. Creating an autobio is discouraged, not prohibited. Possible POV is reason for cleanup, not deletion. Having said that, I just looked at the references (and pared them down, several were used twice in the article). The only one that has a link actually does not mention the name of the subject. --Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete per above.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2014 (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.