Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Auerbach


 * 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. MelanieN (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Gary Auerbach

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems to fail WP:BP and WP:GNG. Sources are weak, which include self-published website, a deadlinked site, and authored book. The strongest sources are a couple catalogue entries of the Smithsonian for his photographs, which does not meet WP:AUTHOR. Delta13C (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  23:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  23:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07  ( T ) 15:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, this seems to be advertorial, there's no evidence the guy is actually notable. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Being a founding member and president of an organization is a claim that might constitute enough notability to keep a properly sourced and genuinely substantive article, but it's not a freebie that confers automatic inclusion rights just because the person exists. This does indeed look and feel less like an encyclopedia article and more like the kind of advertorial PR profile one might expect to find on his own website, and the referencing is parked almost entirely on primary sourced confirmation of his existence rather than reliably sourced evidence of notability. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2015 (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.