Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nelson Briefer

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

:({{Find sources AFD|Nelson Briefer}})

WP:BLP of a writer with no strong claim to passage of WP:AUTHOR and no strong reliable source coverage. His only potential claim to notability is a self-published e-book on Smashwords, and the only sources here are the Smashwords profile and a Blogspot blog. As always, a writer is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists -- reliable source coverage, supporting a proper claim of notability, must be present before he becomes eligible for an article on here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delete as I myself reviewed this at NPP and planned to nominate myself, nothing at all for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. GS gives nothing. Fame is too slender. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC).
• Delete page was created by a WP:SPA [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hg2999] might be Briefer himself. CerealKillerYum (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. Given that the original version of the article already linked to a site attacking the subject (a BLP violation, since it isn't a reliable source) it seems unlikely to be an autobiography. Regardless, we have no reliably published sources with in-depth and independent coverage of the subject, so no pass of WP:GNG and nothing on which to base an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delete - badly fails the scholar test, and there are zero Ghits at Google Scholar. Birders are not an endangered species, pardon the pub. Bearian (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.