Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David M. Huntwork

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. Cirt (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David M. Huntwork

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

This article appears to be an autobiography by the subject of the article, Dkhunt (talk · contribs) (and I am suspicious about the bona fides of Mistermarkwhite (talk · contribs) as well; the account looks very sockpuppety). It is an orphan and much of it is unsourced. The few sources it does cite are a mixture of personally authored works published on personal websites and thoroughly unreliable websites such as WorldNetDaily, and articles by other people which merely quote the author (e.g. ""A secular and atheistic jihad," cries a guy named David Huntwork on the GOPUSA Web site." [1]) This does not remotely assert the notability of the subject, and the author's conflict of interest is self-evident. The entire article appears to be little more than an exercise in self-promotion for a non-notable individual. ChrisO (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 18:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - There are COI concerns regarding the article and its author, but the subject himself has some weak notability. Not strong enough to satisfy WP:N or WP:BIO in my opinion. I do see work like this, an article David wrote at a "daily internet publication". That's about the extent of the notability claims, so I would say that his notability depends on whether or not such contributions are considered notable. I would say no, they aren't much better than blog posts. -- Atama頭 18:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – None of the cited sources are more than a passing mention, and few of these sources are reliable. I'm more notable than this guy, at least based on the evidence in the article. Rees11 (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no awards, no significant contributions (WP:ANYBIO). Does not meet any of the criteria of WP:AUTHOR, either. Being the first to blog about Rathergate is not exactly what I'd call a significant contribution to the annals of journalism. Tarc (talk) 13:27, 19 October 2009 (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.