Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carleton Sheets

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 the current version, without prejudice to recreation of a better article. Daniel Bryant 09:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carleton Sheets[edit]

This page is probably deletable as spam/G11, I admit. The reason I bring it here is because its companion page, for the PEI, is long-established, and is not spam, as it contains a criticism section. Both articles suffer from a lack of verifiable sources, and should best be considered to together. Delete or (if Professional Education Institute above somehow survives), redirect. Xoloz 15:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some comments on the talk page. 63.215.28.84 18:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 19:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but fix. I agree that this is an awful article. However, Sheets is definitely notable. There are over a hundred thousand hits to his name on Google. He is a well-known "informercial" spokesman who has come under a great deal of criticism that needs to be fully and completely reflected in this article. That "institute" however is just a marketing gimmick and should be deleted or merged into this article. The reason is that Sheets is well known to any viewer of late night TV, but his "institute" is not.--Mantanmoreland 16:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

>100,000 raw hits on Google but just 565 unique Google hits. --A. B. ^(talk) 03:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to weak keep since I proposed the speedy delete. But don't look to me to fix this one. Bearian 16:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete I don't generally approve of the weak/strong keep/delete nomination, but... I think the present article falls far below the standards of quality for Wikipedia, I really think it ought to be deleted rather than kept in it's present state. I agree that notability may be achieved by this case, but notability is not the only criterion. I don't know whether the many internet sources (representative example: "Carleton Sheets No Down Payment Complaints" on infomercialscams.com) can be buttressed by reliable sources, but I think that needs to be done before the article can be kept. Pete.Hurd 21:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a few "offhand" references from apparently reliable sources on Google News[1]. However, I agree that without some good reliable sources reflecting the dubious nature of this person's theories, the article should be deleted.--Mantanmoreland 15:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So far there's been talk of latenight television, etc., but no sign of any reliable sources to prove notability per the requirements of the Reliable Sources and Notability Guidelines. If someone can change this, then I will reconsider my "delete" comment, but until then no reliable sources = no notability = no article. --A. B. ^(talk) 03:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice against a better bio being written; currently it has no RS and notability isnt well established in the article. This article has been around for years and is still virtually an orphan. John Vandenberg 03:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May not be a bad solution. Only am in favor of this article if it can be written as a properly sourced article that can't be read as endorsement of his dubious "no money down" program. If and when this thing is canned, I will try to see if there is a good piece on him in, say, the Wall Street Journal that might be the used as the source of an article. I am fairly sure I have seen articles on him in investment publications.--Mantanmoreland 15:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A check of the last 10 years worth of archives turned up nothing in the Wall Street Journal or any other Dow Jones publication -- I checked. --A. B. ^(talk) 04:47, 7 May 2007 (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.