Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Ulmer

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.

Chris Ulmer

Chris Ulmer (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)

promotional article for non notable advocate. We should not be misled by the sympathy for what he is promoting. DGG ( talk ) 08:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. He has one significant award and one very extensive article by the BBC. Possibly a bit premature, but this is a specialist field where it is probably unusually hard to gain much notability. Mccapra (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Believe he has gained enough coverage, both nationally and internationally by independent, reliable, 3rd party sources, as shown by this Google News search [1]. Does his message pull at the heart strings, of course! But that does not disqualify the message or the current coverage, of both the individual and cause, with additional exposure guaranteed to come. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Shoessss, sufficient mainstream media sources exist. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't know how sufficient you feel the sources are, Yes he is covered by BBC but lets look at this critically, if we accepted every subject that was written about just once by BBC and a whole bunch of passing mentions we would have a whole lot of spam here. For me, it still doesn't have enough
  WP:SIGCOV, for now it only serves to promote the subject. Lapablo (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - The subject has been covered nationally and internationally over a sustained period by ABC News, the BBC (as mentioned above), USA Today, as well as local news stations, all of which are significant coverage of the subject and not merely mentions. I did some article clean up, replacing social media refs, as well as adding content, which expanded the article some. The subject has also received 2 awards (here and here). Based on the reliable, 3rd-party sources, the subject passes
  WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:31, 28 March 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.