Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Gorman


 * 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. WP:NOQUORUM, closing in favour of delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Peter Gorman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Apparent autobiography, article lacks sufficient secondary sourcing independent of subject to confirm notability of subject. Coretheapple (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 00:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Coverage like, ,  shows that it's possible that he's notable.  The problem is that these articles aren't really about him so much as reporting about something else, then mentioning him.  It's difficult for me to find truly in-depth coverage of his life separate from soundbites to the press.  There are hits on Google Books, but a lot of them seem to be quotations of articles he wrote at High Times, or they're first-person stories of exploits he made or others shared with him, which I'm not sure can give the same notability as a secondary source.  This could be recreated it were properly sourced and better demonstrated notability.  My own searches don't conclusively show his notability, and I think it's better to delete than have a promotional, poorly-sourced article on a questionably notable person. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:53, 8 March 2016 (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.