Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Gray (Author)

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 Consensus is to delete as non notable.. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Gray (Author)[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Non-notable author lacking non-trivial support. References are for the most part brief mentions, quotes, or WP:PRIMARY in nature. Editor that created article has disclosed they are associated "employer, client, and[/or other] affiliation" on article talk page. Page is more of a vanity/advertisement page than an encyclopedic article. reddogsix (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Dave is a well-known thought leader and author in the field of business communication and collaboration. Plus, the page was created in compliance with Wikipedia's paid inclusion policy so that should not be in consideration here. The writing here is absolutely in keeping with Wikipedia style...there is no vanity or slant to how the information is presented. Karmaclub (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Sockpuppet !vote stricken.[reply]

Comment - Please indicate how being , "a well-known thought leader and author in the field of business communication and collaboration" meets any of the criteria for inclusion listed in WP:N, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. reddogsix (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources present quite clearly show that he meets Wikipedia's guidelines for Notability and Biography. I was in the process of adding even more sources and citations to the page, but we are now detoured here. Karmaclub (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Speaking at a design think tank is not enough for notability. Also fails WP:AUTHOR. The article is written like an ad anyway. Laurdecl ^talk 09:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: See my comment above. Karmaclub (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising the Keep comment simply says "He's well known and notable" but not actually showing it, especially to at least convince us better from the currently unacceptable article, since it's simply PR. Like with articles, the user is allowed to make improvements but it won't be a guarantee of keeping it, and "The sources present quite clearly show that he meets Wikipedia's guidelines for Notability and Biography" is not showing our actual policies accepting it (for example WP:NOT), hence not the same thing. Overall, there's enough to suggest there's simply not the significant notability needed. SwisterTwister talk 00:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Took me a while to check the copious "sources" and assess the article, which gives all the appearance of of a reasonable article. However, the sources are not truly reliable and the text of the article feels like a PROMO. Finally, the keep !vote above is that of the self-declared COI editor that created it — Iadmc ♫^talk 20:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG as would be satisfied if WP:RS existed. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I just finished reading Liminal Thinking and really enjoyed it. I'd like this page to stay so I can follow the author. Mi5meadow (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mi5meadow: That amounts to WP:ILIKEIT and is not really a valid argument at AFD. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:43, 26 January 2017 (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.