Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Beers

:{{la|Jim Beers}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Jim Beers}})

No indication that this person is in any way notable. Sources I find do not seem to be neutral or reliable. PROD declined when this article was about a completely different person. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• Very weak delete This is a retired person who seems (per this article) to only be notable for single-issue campaigning since their retirement. That isn't a bar to inclusion, but it's a case that needs good evidence of a substantial effort on that campaign. We have one ref so far that seems to support this, and the phrase "I guess by now Beers needs no introduction," does indeed suggest that he's a big player in this campaign. However how reliable is that source, The Wildlife News? If it's just a shiny website, that alone isn't enough. What does the Sierra Club, Nat Geo, or others, reckon to him?

: Personally I dislike WP:BLP1E as it's usually mis-used (as it might be here) to squash bios for poor grounds, so I don't see that as an issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• Weak Delete As of now, this person does not seem notable. However, maybe if the page was expanded, notability will be more clear. JDDJS (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• Weak Delete As the creator of the article, I have every intention of expanding upon it to make it more acceptable. I am just getting started on it. Perhaps I should have messed around a bit with the sandbox before posting the article. I will not deny that I am biased, as someone who personally knows (or rather, has met on an occasion and conducted an interview with him) Mr. Beers, but this also gives me an insight as to whether he is truly notable or not. Having said that, I do not intend this bio to be my personal propaganda page. I will try to be as objective as possible and I hope others will let me know when they feel something needs to be improved. And I am not so sure that 'sources' themselves have to be entirely neutral, as long as the particular thing written about the person on the wiki article itself is neutral (like I said, let me know if it is felt otherwise), as in stating a fact, and that the reference, neutral or otherwise, is at the very least reputable and also stating either a fact, or if stating an opinion it may be necessary for the article to note the fact that it is an opinion, as was done when putting 'anti-wolf' in quotes, for example. SakaScotii (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2011 (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.