Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allan Bonner

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 salt to prevent recreation. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Bonner[edit]

Non-notable person, page reads as advertisment. CSD - spam not approved, although looking at User talk:Allanbonner, this page (or a similar one to it) has been speedied in the past. StephenBuxton (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, weak keep. At least one book he authored has multiple citations, and at least one reputable media outlet has used him as a pundit. The entry needs a serious NPOV injection, but the subject is notable. The problem will be finding reference material not too badly infected with spin. 9Nak (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you getting back to me so quickly and trying to resolve this issue.

I am not sure what "weak keep" means. The reason his book as multiple citations is due to information from other industry experts or quoting people such as Marx etc... Many reputable media outlets have used him as a pundit in fact he is on BNN tonight speaking about a current controversial matter. I am not sure what NPOV inhection means. And he has been referenced by many media outlets and notable people so I am not sure what "too badly infected with spin" refers to. Is there information that should be removed for this to get approved?

Thanks again you are very helpful. Sarah Sarahanders1712 (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:StephenBuxton"

comment Explanations... Weak keep means that this person thinks the article shouldn't be deleted, but only just thinks that. NPOV Injection slang way of saying that the article is very biased, and needs rewriting with a Neutral Point Of View - see this guideline. Too badly infected with spin is referring to the sources - they are very heavily biased and putting a "positive spin" on the person. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, Sarah, this article is a vanity page written either by Mr. Bonner himself or people associated with him. It has been created in various forms in the past and has been repeatedly deleted. While I was the admin that declined to speedily delete it, I agree with what user 9Nak said about the issues. The article is not encyclopedic - it is really a promotion of Mr. Bonner, and needs to be rewritten to remove bias. Tan | 39 17:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't have said it better myself, thanks. I've trimmed back the article – so severely that it may now be an even better candidate for deletion. Can't find acceptable (non self-published) references to include most of the claims in the original; YMMV. 9Nak (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's been deleted several times already as a vanity article. Now that it's been stubified it's a different discussion, but I don't see any evidence of notability. BradV 21:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NN. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I usually try to see what I can do to save a notable page, but this page is not notable. If it was a vanity page before, and it's a one-sentence stub now that the POV content is gone, I really don't see a reason to keep it. Macduffman (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2008 (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.