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 and redirect to Zodiac Killer#Other possible suspects. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Loyd Stewart[edit]

Gary Loyd Stewart (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)

This article appears very sensational and badly sourced. Basically all the juicy "early life" material that makes up the bulk of the material is directly from primary claims made in his book, and can't be regarded as reliably sourced. Leaving that out, there's not enough notability left for an article on the man. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - The book/memoir may be more deserving of a page, rather than Stewart. This page talks about family history, rather than about Stewart specifically. If this deserves coverage at all, it would be because the book claimed to find the Zodiac Killer. I suggest gutting any information not pertaining to the Zodiac suspect. Maybe he warrants a mention here: Zodiac Killer. Willie d troudour (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Zodiac Killer#Other possible suspects, where a well-sourced sentence exists, which is about what this subject merits. The review I found in the [San Francisco Chronicle]] ran about a month after the pub. date and describes the "flurry of publicity" on cable news surrounding the book's publication, but the review dismisses the book for lack of evidence ("The Most Dangerous Animal of All,' by Gary L. Stewart," but the book review dismissed the book in a few short sentences, ("Now, 45 years after the Zodiac's last known murder, another name has been added to the list: the late Earl Van Best, a San Francisco rare-book dealer who resembled the police composite sketch of the killer. He's been nominated by his son, Gary L. Stewart, a Louisiana business executive. With co-author Susan Mustafa, Stewart has written "The Most Dangerous Animal of All: Searching for My Father ... and Finding the Zodiac Killer." The book attracted a flurry of cable-television publicity when it was published last month. But Stewart's book is short on proof that his father killed anybody, let alone the six Zodiac victims. Instead, embedded in a slow-moving narrative about an adoptee's search for his birth parents, the book offers some interesting local color and odd interpersonal connections from 1960s San Francisco, along with some investigative leads that Stewart thinks need to be pursued.") devoting itself, instead, to reviewing the long list of suspects and proposed suspects. In sum, while there may well be sufficient sourcing (mainly pre-pub publicity) so support an article, our readers are better served by the sentence in the main article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2018 (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.