Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Preston (anarchist)

:{{la|Keith Preston (anarchist)}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Keith_Preston_(anarchist) Stats])

:({{Find sources|Keith Preston (anarchist)}})

This subject fails WP:NOTABILITY; lacks unrelated secondary sources and relies primarily on WP:OR. No discernible scholarship or publications other than self published Internet advocacy pieces. Found one possible appearance at a recent forum of white supremacists but no reliable source gives the subject coverage of the quality or quantity that could support an encyclopedic biography; coverage that is at all about this person is nearly exclusively the subject's weblog or sourced to the subject himself. Vttor (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Neither he nor his movement seem to have attracted much comment from reliable sources. I guess non-bomb throwing anarchists just aren't newsworthy. --Bejnar (talk) 08:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC) changed to full delete --Bejnar (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 07:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

---

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete as a promotional bio created by the subject or someone close to him. Fails GNG, not the subject of the multiple instances of independently published, substantial coverage necessary for verifiability to be maintained. Carrite (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Nearly all of the article's sources were written by Preston himself. I originally had a weak opinion on this article's deletion in hopes that enough independent sources could be found to allow for this to pass WP:GNG, but I doubt the possibility of this happening anytime soon. In addition, the article has an excess of underlinked terminology, and upon re-reading the article I found its neutrality questionable. In its current state, this article has too many flaws to remain on Wikipedia. --Lord Bromblemore (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Keep as numerous references exist. Faisal 1918 (talk) 01:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
• Delete as there are no reliable source references. Bondegezou (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2012 (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.