Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig MacFarlane

: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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

=[[:Craig MacFarlane]]=

:{{la|Craig MacFarlane}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Craig_MacFarlane Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Craig MacFarlane}})

promotional and non notable. This has been declined as a draft 5 times , by 4 different reviewers. Theed. has in the process accumulated enough edits to be able to write the same unsatisfactory material in mainspace, and has now done so. This is an artifact of our system for handling articles by new editors, and we need to find some way to prevent people from using this loophole.

I note the two books listed are self published, and neither is any significant number of libraries.

I assume this is promotionalism for his lecture career. The contributor was asked whether there was coi and has not responded.

I suggest, not just deletion, but protection. DGG ( talk ) 10:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much better sources than this even attempts to show. Weekly World News? Really? Bearcat (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete per lack of WP:SIGCOV. One source cited is known for hoaxes, and another is published by a cult. Bearian (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

*Delete There's only one strong reliable source. Not enough to keep a promotional article Alpateya (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

:Alpateya is a blocked sock. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

: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.