Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Suhor

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Suhor

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

Essentially advocacy, as shown by the emphasis on his POV, and the extraordinarily inappropriate non-encyclopedic detail. Possibly a NPOV article can be written, but the first step is removing this. I say this just the same as I would say for commercial advertising. This should not be taken to indicate that I disagree or agree with the contributors POV, or the subject's POV--I would say the same in either case. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. DGG has really said it all: like so many articles created by the same editor, this one is clearly written to impress the reader with a point of view. The article is so long and detailed, and the promotional tone is so deeply embedded into it, that editing the promotion out is not a realistic proposition, so as DGG suggests, the only thing to do is scrap it, and it may or may not be that someone can then write a neutral article on the same subject. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's possibly sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. But the coverage is that he is a gadfly, who generates press coverage merely for protesting; having this much detail on him is WP:UNDUE. A speech before the Escambia Board of County Commissioners needs far more than local coverage and atheist trade-press coverage to become notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree to above Light2021 (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2017 (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.