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 keep (non-admin close). There appears to be a consensus that the sources identified during the course of the discussion allay any notability concerns. Guest9999 (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr John Demartini[edit]

Dr John Demartini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

fails WP:BIO. no real evidence he is an expert in the field Google news search reveals limited coverage. Seems self promotional, article created by someone who admits they're a publicist. [1] Michellecrisp (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - that search was unduly restrictive - this one is broader. TerriersFan (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep After reviewing the google news search, I found that the subject portrayed has been significantly covered in press. Take a look for your self. Also seems to be an author of notable books. RedThunder 11:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - reviewing the sources, he does seem to be a notable person. WilyD 13:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —RJC ^Talk_Contribs 18:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- article needs some pretty ruthless editing, but I think he meets WP:N. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes basic WP:BIO criteria. He has enough coverage in the media that is "reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". Indeed, the article reads like an ad; needs to be rewritten.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:29, 6 November 2008 (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.