Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cliff Arnesen

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Arnesen

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

WP:BLP of an activist, relying almost entirely on primary (self-penned content and/or the websites of organizations he's directly involved in) and unreliable (WordPress blogs) sources; the only publication that can possibly count as an acceptable source here is Huffington Post, and even that reference is to a blurb. No prejudice against recreation in the future if good sources can be provided, but primary and blog sourcing is never the way to get somebody into an encyclopedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added a couple more sources. I will try to find more, and encourage others to. He's an important figure in bisexual activism, so it would be nice to be able to have an article on him. 173.49.70.61 (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may need to learn about the difference between a reliable source and a primary source if you think you "added" anything that improves the quality of sourcing at all. Bearcat (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (intone) @ 21:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Sources do not establish notability sufficiently. Becky Sayles (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Given the generally supportive stance of the US press to LGBT issues and causes, the lack of RS in this individual's case is indicative of non-notability.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 07:48, 3 January 2015 (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.