Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Dobrenski


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Rob Dobrenski

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I proposed for deletion as an IP address; it was rejected by User:Atlantic306 on the basis that Rob Dobrenski is notable as an author. However, despite the numerous sources there is no assertion of notability in any of them.
 * 1) Reference 1 - a listing on a database website; no assertion of notability
 * 2) Reference 2 - primary source, the subject's own blog/website
 * 3) Reference 3 - Same as reference 1
 * 4) Reference 4 - deadlink
 * 5) Reference 5 - deadlink (same website as Ref 4)
 * 6) Reference 6 - primary source, the subject's own blog/website
 * 7) Reference 7 - deadlink (same website as Refs 4 and 5)
 * 8) Reference 8 - a list of physicians employed by a company; no assertion of notability
 * 9) Reference 9 - primary source, the subject's own blog/website
 * 10) Reference 10 - deadlink (same website as Refs 4, 5, 7)
 * 11) Reference 11 - deadlink, dunceuponatime was associated with Dobrenski's shrinktalk.net
 * 12) Reference 12 - deadlink, philalawyer was associated with Dobrenski's shrinktalk.net
 * 13) Reference 13 - Review of Dobrenski's book - I don't know if Kirkus Reviews is considered a reliable source, but if this one article justifies a Wikipedia article, it would justify one about the book being reviewed rather than the author. It provides no material about Dobrenski himself.
 * 14) Reference 14 - primary source, blogtalkradio - the subject's own podcast and defunct for years
 * 15) Reference 15 - deadlink (same as Ref 11)
 * 16) Reference 16 - a link to a different podcast by the subject; no assertion of notability
 * 17) Reference 17 - Although Time magazine is notable, Dobrenski was quoted in one paragraph - this does not constitute "significant coverage" per WP:GNG
 * 18) Reference 18 - deadlink, CNN may be notable but the article is neither extant nor archived
 * 19) Reference 19 - primary source, the subject's own blog/website

Rob Dobrenski does not appear to meet our notability guidelines for either authors or academics. Seth Kellerman (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - I agree with nom, the sources are not reliable, and the article looks like a paid editing puff piece by someone who's first edit was to edit their user page. Regardless, all the padded references do not add up to passing WP:GNG.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 06:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 06:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 06:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 06:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 06:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete after more consideration as the sources are not sufficient for WP:GNG although Kirkus reviews is reliable and a book article may possibly be notable. Atlantic306 (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete the references do not pass GNG at this time. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:53, 7 July 2017 (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.