Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Sivers

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Sivers[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails GNG. I've considered merge and re-direct to CD Baby, but the notability of the target article is also suspect. Most of contents are based from his own website and his picture was uploaded by himself. Article looks like an autobiography Graywalls (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Business, New Zealand, and California. Graywalls (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with Wikipedia deletion policies, but I just had to write and ask you to put the deletion of DS on hold temporarily. His entry may be his own work, but he is very respected and recommended by a number of "respectable" modern thinkers. I have recently started reading his work properly. In my view (as a 67-year old still seeking the meaning of life) his writings are hugely important. Can't someone objective please edit his entry and make information about him more accessible to the wider readership? 2A00:23C5:E153:CA01:348B:3B5C:5C4C:9E84 (talk) 10:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Opinions and testimonies editors are not given weight on their own. Claims such as well respected, or by recommended by respectable members in the field must be verified by reliable sources to establish general notability. Sources used for establishing notability needs to be secondary source that is intellectually independent from the subject and reliably published. So, books written by his friends ad published through vanity presses or otherwise self published do not have any weight in this regard. While primary sources are not prohibited and they're alright for confirming basic details such as their place of birth, where they live or birthday, they should only be used very sparingly. Graywalls (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not much of anything found, brief mentions [1] and [2]. He's a prolific writer, with ample citations in Gscholar, but nothing substantial. I can't find any reviews on sites we'd consider RS, the best was on medium, which is not a good source. Oaktree b (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He's even done a TED talk that's gotten many mentions online, but I can't fine anything in RS. Feels like he should be at GNG, but I can't find anything we can use. His H index using google is 5, but I'm not sure what that represents. [3]. Oaktree b (talk) 01:34, 5 November 2022 (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.