Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunbatz Men (2nd nomination)

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. Courcelles 17:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hunbatz Men

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

First AfD was not properly tagged to the article page, so closing and renominating. Endorsing the original nominator's reasoning for lack of notability. Safiel (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Dougweller And to make life simpler, copying that here, including date:

Repost of 1st AfD Nominator's comment, from 1st AfD Hunbatz Men is apparently a New Age guru. The page hardly discusses him and instead pushes his fringe New Age interpretations of Maya culture. I've Googled for reliable sources and only found a load of New Age dross. Simon Burchell (talk) 9:51 am, 20 December 2013, last Friday (3 days ago) (UTC+0)

Repost of the only other comment from the 1st AfD - Speedy delete. Not notable. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I went ahead and brought over the other comment as well, since this is essentially a continuation of the first AfD. Safiel (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've spent some time searching and asking around, and my findings are the same. I think I found 2 brief mentions that he was doing this or that, but they were brief with no discussion. Dougweller (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I first nominated this for deletion, but obviously didn't do it properly. Just an excuse for New Age dross, doesn't even discuss the supposed subject. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The best I could say for this subject is that his books were published via a moderately reputable new-age publisher (if that isn't a contradiction in terms), however he does not seem to have attracted the kind of coverage in reliable sources that we'd want from a WP:BLP article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:18, 23 December 2013 (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.