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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Sereda

[edit]

Marginal figure who does not pass any of our notability guidelines for biographies. Just because you testify before congress, plant trees, make house documentary films, and appear on Coast to Coast does not make you notable. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Despite appearing in and creating various works, he isn't the "subject of published secondary source material" Theymos (talk) 04:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I created this article to replace a copyvio one so I don't have much stake in it either way. I do think being interviewed on a nationally syndicated helps to establish notability, it may not be enough on it's own. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:BIO. Xihr 00:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and convert the external links to inline citations. He looks like he has the miimal number of reliable sources with the interview. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in the article comes close to establishing notability. Looie496 (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The radio show is the only thing in the article that makes for any kind of plausible claim of notability, but I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:22, 16 January 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.