Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel J. Hill

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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel J. Hill

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

Subject does not appear to be notable. Outside of the one source listed, can find no other mention of him. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced BLP. Carrite (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on the fence with this one. If these dubious claims can be verified, then he surely is notable; but I smell something fishy here with this. A quick Google search shows that there are some mentions of his name, but few are exactly reliable sources, many of them seem to be related to beehives of 9/11 conspiracies, and the ones that seem to be OK sources don't really mention much more than his association with Rick Rescorla (I also have to note that the dating on most of them makes it viable that they were referencing this article). Has anyone been able to verify this referenced book? If anyone can find some solid refernces for his military career and demonstrate that he really did have a hand in some of the historical events mentioned, I will support keeping it. bahamut0013^words _deeds 20:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: world cat has details for the book listed here: [1]. I don't know whether it actually discusses Hill in detail, though. This google books description seems to mention Hill in relation to the book: [2]. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is filled with astonishing assertions, which if true would make Hill (and his claimed alter ego Rescorla) some kind of prophetic genius. But the only source is a single book, whose credibility is impossible to determine. A search for additional sources finds nothing reliable. Don't we require MULTIPLE independent sources? --MelanieN (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2010 (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.