Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Elmore


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Phil Elmore

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has been present for a long time, but it's been tagged with primarysources for most of that time, except when removed it. It's been repeatedly readded. The article is based entirely on self-written if not self-published material, because as far as I can tell, no reliable secondary sources on the guy exist. Most of the people who bothered to criticize him were on web forums like Bullshido.net or Encyclopedia Dramatica, which I'm pretty sure we can't cite. So either we need sources that comment on what he says, or we just have a vanity page which is not allowed. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  -- Nate1481 11:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep notable figure in the online martial arts community. The page has been a constant BLP problem but that doesn't change matters. JJL (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Don't assert notability; show it. But in this case, it can't be done. Fences and windows (talk) 03:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached--clearly the first week is not enough to get the necessary attention. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep notability is established but most of the article is unverifiable. Unverifiable information should be deleted.  Anyone who re-inserts unreferenced information after being warned is a vandal and should be banned. Drawn Some (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How has notability been established? There aren't any secondary reliable sources. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The only part conceivably notable is his writings. As a novelist, the only work held in a worldcat library is held by one library only; his self-defense books exactly the same; not surprising, since they're self-published. DGG (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Without any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to show notability it's hard to vote anything else. -- aktsu (t / c) 00:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I find myself respectfully agreeing with Drawn Some fairly frequently of late but this is the first time I've rebutted his keep vote. However notable this guy may or may not be, primary sources are not sufficient for WP:N or WP:RS, this seems to be purely a vanity page that cites more vanity pages. Creating lots of webpages on oneself does not make one notable" HJMitchell    You rang?  15:50, 12 May 2009 (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.