Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lloyd Bell

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. Tone 15:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Bell

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Lloyd Bell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Tagged for notability since 2009, I can’t find multiple reliable independent sources to support this article, which seems to be based largely on a single piece in Alternet dating from 2000. Mccapra (talk) 08:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment user:theinstantmatrix I see you’ve removed some !votes from this nomination. I’m not clear why. Could you explain please? Thanks Mccapra (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Both previous commenters have been blocked for long-term abuse, so I suppose that's why their comments have been removed. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah ok thanks for letting me know. Mccapra (talk) 09:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The Alternet source cited in the article is not reliable, and the citation to the Dollars & Sense source is insufficient for us to track it down because it contains neither article title nor author. Searching elsewhere for his supposedly most well-known invention with his surname draws a blank:

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

Phil Bridger (talk) 11:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that coverage is probably too slight for an article - but what exactly is the issue with Alternet as a source? Has that been agreed on as an unreliable source for WP use somewhere, or is this just your own assessment? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:31, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much a question of whether Alternet is unreliable, but that that particular article is an interview. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2019 (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.