Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Renouf

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. --MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Renouf

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

Not notable, fails WP:BASIC because I could only find two sources that mention him, one is only a trivial mention and the other (here) is a questionable source (blog on an news website, not sure if the writer is a professional journalist). Esquivalience ^t 20:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did find another source here, but it is a self-published blog and fails WP:UGC Esquivalience ^t 20:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the subject of this entry, I'd like to add the fact that it was written maliciously and with inaccurate information. Yes, I did appear on Sun News talking about the train accident, but at no point did I say it was terrorism. We discussed the fact that the CEO of the train company declared it may be terrorism- I was very clear throughout that there was no evidence it was. Here's the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNNrI0egH9g — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.113.240 (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article is about a non-notable conspiracy theorist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goof Repellant (talk • contribs) 02:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non-notable online pundit and occasional guest on a (now-shut down) TV talk show without in-depth coverage in reliable sources does not require a standalone biography. Also may have been created as a tool of his opponents. Canuckle (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable blogger with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Of the 5 sources listed in the article, 4 are not at all about him, and are instead about the Lac-Mégantic disaster. The one source that does include him only has him as a passing mention. As for the potential source noted by the nominator, it is a blog post. Anybody can join and post stories per this registration page. Note that at the top of the blog post, it does state that the post has been reviewed by editors, and has been copyeditted, and fact checked. However, we base notability in reliable sources by the editorial decisions in selecting stories to publish and I do not see that happening here. The editorial oversight provide for verifiability but it appears anybody can write about anything they are interested in. -- Whpq (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2015 (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.