Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Ribacoff

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. czar 19:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Ribacoff

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

promotional article by an apparently connected contributor, who wrote this in 2012, and nothing before or since. Performs as a polygraph examiner on television, and the references are just notes about his appearances there. No substantial sources about him that I can identify. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Holy moley -- of the nine references cited by this article, three are direct links to YouTube videos, one is a direct link to a Hulu video, one is a transcript of a talk show... the reference from the bar association is just an invitation to a golf event, one isn't in English, and the Connecticut Mag reference literally mentions him once in passing. The only remotely acceptable reference is the ABC News one, which quotes him on a few things, but none of the stuff in this article. I can't even fathom how an article could be written from just this source, let alone an article that would pass WP:N. jp×g 05:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no where near adequate sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2020 (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.