Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenn Harrold


 * 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. Daniel (talk) 09:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Glenn Harrold

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Mostly promotional references and does not follow WP:BIO requirements. No effort made to provide reliable sources for notability with significant coverage. Association between article creator and subject revealed by administrator on talk page. — ClappingCommon (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. The article is very promotional. -- Devoke  water  10:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: No indication of notability anywhere. Mottezen (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: In terms of notability, the subject of the article does hold a gold disc and is published author with the BBC and Orion. The language is not overly promotional. That said, I agree that there is much room for improvement in terms of the citation of reliable sources. Russd1978 (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment it should be noted that this editor is a SPA who has only edited this wikipage, is the creator of the page, COI?. -- Devoke water  11:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Thanks for the notice. This article fails WP:BIO and is only sourced to promotional material.--JBchrch (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hasn't really improved since my PROD, where I said: "Promotional article created by SPA. No evidence of notability. This is the version with substantial promotional material removed. WP:BEFORE shows little evidence of RS coverage." It would be saveable with sufficient independent third-party RS coverage, but without that we can't really have a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable, fails WP:GNG. -- Devoke  water  10:12, 21 March 2021 (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.