Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Lee Dumas (2nd nomination)

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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Lee Dumas[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)

The references provided do not provide substantial coverage of the subject so WP:BIO does not appear to be met. Note that all the Forbes links are forbes.com/sites/ which are not reliable sources. SmartSE (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment even though this article has a promotional feel, the references include Inc, and NBC, and US News and World Report with mentions. This will require me to do some more work. Wm335td (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- One interview (that provides no biographical information about him) and being included in two list articles [1] [2] does not constitute substantial coverage. SmartSE (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Delete ... added ref to MSNBC interview and others; removed Forbes contributors links.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @The Eloquent Peasant: Which sources demonstrate WP:BIO is met? That MSNBC interview is the same one I linked to above. SmartSE (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This piece seems to be about a non-notable subject. Lots of puffery from accounts that seem suspect in terms of having an undisclosed COI (looking at edit history, every time this piece seems to come up for discussion, a random user starts vigorously defending it and adding a zillion sources, many of which are later removed.) I don't see the notability criteria of WP:BIO being met here. I simply do not see sources that are significant enough and have enough real editorial oversight. Lots of Inc/Forbes/bloggy-clickfarm type stuff here. Not sure this person justifies an article as opposed to subject's inclusion on perhaps a list, if that.173.227.22.136 (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Many sources are blog or promotional content done by marketing teams but not journalists. Inherently self-promotional article on Wikipedia from the look of it. Article seems more like thinly veiled marketing piece as opposed to a legitimate Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.169.45.4 (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable subject. Does not meet WP:BLP. Sourcing does not meet WP:BIO.2600:387:8:7:0:0:0:85 (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Isn't 4 deletes and no keeps a clear consensus? SmartSE (talk) 10:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Smartse, three of those were by editors who had never participated in AfD and had generally not participated in discussions before. Weighing their !vote was tricky and as such I decided there was little harm in a relist. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is high time we rid Wikipedia of needlessly promotional cruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2019 (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.