Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Garner

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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Garner

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

Non-notable figure; full of external links; created by an account with the same name as his mission (what a surprise). Orange Mike | Talk 02:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is spammy due to the COI edits, but here, for example, is an article on Garner from the Sydney Morning Herald: [1]. I found what looks like a decent amount of coverage of both Garner and the Wesley Mission in the Herald and well as other Australian media outlets like ABC News [2] and the AAP [3]. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May possibly be notable, but the article as it is written so breaches WP:NPOV and WP:COI to be unsalvageable. It is blatant and unrepentent self-promotion by some one involved in the Wesley Mission. Better to delete this ~~article~~ advertisement and let someone else start again from scratch if they wish. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sorry but not an IT expert. This is not an attempt at self promotion. In fact just the opposite. The email address is because I asked a member of my team to help me by putting in a piece of information. We shall not make the same mistake again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorthingtonJones (talk • contribs) 06:02, 30 June 2010 — WorthingtonJones (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment I'm finding your comments confusing: who are "we" and what "team" are we talking about? If you are affiliated with the subject of this article, it's not really appropriate for you to be participating in this deletion discussion and you should avoid editing the article. Please see Wikipedia: Conflict of Interest. -- Rrburke (talk) 11:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per Mattinbgn. Wesley Mission is clearly notable, but it's not clear that Keith Garner is. The article is also a WP:BLP lacking 3rd party references, and has several style problems. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 03:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2010 (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.

"dont delete" subject spoke at a conference i attended and is constantly in the media , requiring independant research links outside organisational bio's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyandbeck (talk • contribs) 01:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]