Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Hindhaugh


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

John Hindhaugh

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep -I am not sure how you could assert a non-notable claim on this one when there are plenty of third part sources to be found like some of these> ,,. There are others but i would think the ones I found would be sufficient to prove he meets WP:Notability. I do agree though that the article needs serious work and expansion.--Canyouhearmenow 12:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Those links don't constitute substantive coverage in reliable sources. One is an interview in which he's mostly talking about himself (which is acceptable for some confirmation of facts, but not able to confer notability); one is an organization which describes itself, right in the article in question, as a commercial partner of the radio service that Hindaugh works for, and is thus a primary source (not to mention that any coverage in which the body text refers to him as "John" rather than as "Hindaugh" is automatically not a reliable source); the third is a blurb which merely mentions his name once or twice in passing, but in which he is not the subject. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: J 1982 (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC) As above.
 * Article does not cite sufficient reliable sourcing to stand alone as an independent BLP. No prejudice against recreation in the future if better sources come to light, but in this form it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (chatter)  @ 16:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Delete, pursuant to Bearcat's comments. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  15:19, 1 September 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.