Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Becker

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: already deleted per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=730817529#Undisclosed_Paid_Editing_Farm (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Becker

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

Fails WP:N and is a clear advertisement. The page was created by a WP:SPA [[1]] who has only 3 edits. All sources except a few are from non-notable publications. There are some notable publications in the reference list but, if you look closer, they're not applicable. For example, this [[2]] Hpost link is to an author page. It's not an article about "Alex Becker" and it's not even about this Alex Becker (it's some other Alex Becker). This article on CNBC [[3]] is better but it's not about the entity but his views on success. The subject also wrote a book which did make it on the US Today list but it was for the independent category. Its highest ranking was #103 in best-sellers which is totally different than what one would get from "The book went to break multiple national bestseller lists including USA Today’s and the national indie bestseller list."[[4]]. Obviously, this is an advertisement filled with puffery that was written by someone close to the subject. Please delete. CerealKillerYum (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A random sample of six cited sources found (a) material written by the subject, (b) possibly reliable source searchenginejournal, but it contained only trivial coverage and it failed verification, and (c) four sources that do not fit Wikipedia's definition of reliable (smartpassiveincome, homebusinesshangout, onlinefanatic, and scitechnation). Moreover, three of the latter four failed verification. If there's any wheat hiding among the chaff, the effort required to find it dwarfs that of starting over from scratch. Apply WP:TNT. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is written like a marketing piece for the subject instead of information about the subject. Bmbaker88 (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2016 (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.