Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neal Lozano

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. Stifle (talk) 11:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Lozano[edit]

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

Old undersourced BLP with only a single MSM reference, and that appears to be a publication notice. Mangoe (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Fails WP:BIO and WP:ANYBIO as this article does not get hits outside religious publications versus third party neutral sources like the Los Angeles Times. --Morenooso (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per WP:V as the individual finds mention across literature delineated in Google Books. With regards, Anupam^Talk 08:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look shows that most of these books are by Lozano. Mangoe (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 9 April 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) 00:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BLP. The main reference in the article is the subject's own web site. The subject has written several books, it is true, but the article gives no indication that these books have been widely read. -- Radagast3 (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Radagast3. If more sources were available about the subject (as opposed to by the subject), this would be a keep. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:24, 21 April 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.