Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. William Holden


 * 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. Black Kite 01:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Dr. William Holden

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Only slightly notable reference is from the Liverpool Daily Post, which doesn't seem to be a huge WP:RS in terms of inclusion. Other refs are either from his own site or blogs. -Zeus-u 15:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 03:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree the article has many issues. Sources are present and have a bit of standard verification to them (though not ideal). Is it just me or can anyone access the sewells site thats listed in the refs? Alot in here is self promoting i find. Personally Im seeing the book more notable than the individual here based on whats provided. Ill look further into this as wellOttawa4ever (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

Weak delete - in its present state I see nothing more than the official site of the firm he is head of, plugs for his book and other non-RSs to plus one minor local newspaper to "verify" his notability from. Which is sort of inevitable for this kind of person, to be fair. If any one can cite from more RS(s) I'll switch the other way but how strong that vote would be depends on how notable the source(s) seem(s) to suggest he is. --Jubilee♫ clipman 03:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Per my rationale above, and mostly lack of reliable sourcing. I am sitting on deletion at this time.Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2010 (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.