Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shawn Boonstra


 * 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. I don't think we need a third relisting. Theconsensus is that the sources are all either not independent or not substantial  DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Shawn Boonstra

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Nomination as per request at WT:AFD. Rationale from article's talk page: "No indication of notability. Appears to fail WP:BIO. 75.192.207.68 (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)" Cerejota (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This guy was the front man for an international TV show which claims a viewership of millions, and has written quite a few books, and not self-published either.Brianyoumans (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep After some thorough research, his most recent role as speaker/director of an international ministry, weekly appearance for six years on a television program and podcasts, and publication of fifteen books verifies his notability. --Traviskeith909 (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I notice this article is five years old, and is still unreferenced. StAnselm (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - a comprehensive review of the sources that have been added since the start of this AFD, every single one is closely associated with the subject so they do not count towards notability. None of the Keep votes have shown how he meets any of the notability requirements. 75.192.21.169 (talk) 01:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I have yet again reviewed the sources that were added to the article while this nomination was in progress. Out of the three added references, two are closely associated with the subject and cannot, by definition, establish notability. The final source was from the BBC, but it's coverage of the subject was incidental, not substantial, so again it does not add up to notability. 75.197.249.71 (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG.--Cox wasan (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete References from within his organization are not the "independent " sources required by GNG and WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 04:00, 16 September 2011 (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.