Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Beech

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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Beech

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to locate significant reliable source coverage in independent sources. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Some of the sources aren't even sources, others are COI sources, and a few don't actually mention Beech. The article itself is pretty noticeably a PR piece, and would have to be rewritten from scratch to approach neutrality. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nomination was fair but citations have been added from from the Telegraph and Baptist Times (added by anon editor), and I did a fairly thorough re-write. – Fayenatic (talk) 14:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two citations have been updated and corrected. Also Carl's latest book The Code has been added to the Bibliography. -User:DaveMedia (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)— DaveMedia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am not able to personally check most of the sources in the article but at least some of them appear to be reliable and independent in the context of the subject matter and, if accepted in good faith, they establish notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The individual seems notable enough and several of the sources reliable. Maybe some more in-depth sourcing would strengthen the status of this article. McMarcoP (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The bulk of the citations in the article are not from WP:RS. The two that are potentially reliable source citations to evaluate more deeply are The Baptist Times and the Telegraph. The Baptist Times piece [1] mentions him as part of a WP:BLP1E bike-ride. The Telegraph piece [2] is the closest to coverage, but its significance is not major. He is quoted a few times, but is not the focus of the article - even though the article appears to be the result of a Church press-release. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Both this biography and that of the organization he heads, Christian Vision for Men, are simultaneously up for deletion, which I find concerning. The group seems clearly notable, the individual is probably notable. In the event this closes as a delete, be sure to merge content to the article on the group. I'll offer no formal recommendation here other than to note that CHRISTIAN VISION FOR MEN (exact phrase) + BEECH generated 53,900 Google hits, indicating the high likelihood that adequate substantial independently published sources exist if one is motivated enough to dig them out. See the deletion discussion for Christian Vision for Men for examples of a couple that I have found about the group. Carrite (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.