Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will Batchelor

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will Batchelor

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

Apparently not notable, but enough claims to pass speedy deletion. The references are all to his own websites or other self-written sources. . DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Non-notable in a very WP:BASIC way. I found nothing as far as coverage (that is, excluding the subject as the author). Also, I don't see a way to keep most of the text in the article as it's either WP:SPS or unsourced in a way that violates WP:BLP (WP:SELFPUB, WP:BLPSPS). If this becomes a notable individual, he'll deserve an article re-written from WP:RS. JFHJr (㊟) 02:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references are to websites which contain self written material, but that is one of the ways he is notable, because he is a journalist! The websites themselves do not belong to Will Batchelor either. Article pased speedy deletion so it must have some credibility. As with all articles, it can be reworded or improved as time goes by. Kiling articles in their early stages is not the answer, otherwise Wikipedia would be doomed from the start! Cexycy (talk) 09:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wikipedia would also be doomed if every local dj and columnist had a poorly written article like this one. I'm not seeing how this subject might meet WP:BIO, without 3rd party references, he's just not going to pass notability guidelines. This article escaped speedy deletion guidelines because it had references, those references must pass scrutiny here and they just dont. Unless some source can be found where this person is the subject of the article and covered in some depth, it should be deleted. RadioFan (talk) 12:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I said this article can easily be improved with time. Also why do the references not pass scrutiny? Sorry but what you're saying doesn't make sense. Cexycy (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are not reliable, third-party sources about the subject for purposes of verifiability or notability. The general notability guidelines are quite clear on the topic. - Dravecky (talk) 00:08, 30 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.