Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David John Pearson
autobiography or not, the sources list is a mess. More than half of those should be in a publications list or something - they are primary sources with regard to the subject. They were written by the subject, they are not about the subject. Some might be used to |verify certain claims within the article but it's difficult to differentiate between primary and secondary sources at the moment. On that basis, I'd probably support deletion (notability not being remotely clear) until |significant coverage in multiple reliable sources can be specifically identified
— [[User: Stalwart111|'''Stalwart''']][[User talk:Stalwart111|'''111''']], 11:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:V||WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Verifiability)