Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Zane Pilzer

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 keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Zane Pilzer[edit]

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

The notability of this subject may be debatable, but what is unquestionable is the blantant soap-boxing in this article created by single-purpose accounts Rbilbray (talk · contribs) and KathyEarnshaw99 (talk · contribs). Also note there's a connection between this one and AfD/Rick Lindquist through this company Zane Benefits. bender235 (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - There do seem to be sufficient sources to establish notability. The article content is problematic, but not to the extent that WP:BLOWITUP would need to be applied. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the article on me (Paul Zane Pilzer) is being “considered for deletion” but I am unclear for what reasons. The article contains 58 citations to published articles about me in The New York Times, The Wall St. Journal and other credible, third-party sources over 30 of my public service, writing career and personal life. I like Wikipedia very much as an excellent resource for credible, sourced information and I want to insure that any article mentioning me is accurate and in complete accordance with Wikipedia guidelines.

Could someone give me an example of something in this article that justifies it being "considered for deletion" and how it should be corrected? I will then do my best to see that such an example and any other such non-conforming examples are deleted or corrected.

Thank you. Paul Zane Pilzer

Strong keep - Are you kidding? Quote from the article: New York Times best-selling author . . . has been profiled in 100 publications including on the front page of The Wall Street Journal." That's more than enough notability for an article in my opinion. For the record, I don't know the man or have any connection to him. 5Q5 (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up comment: The problem writing appears to be in the "Economic viewpoints" section and I have flagged it with "Editorial" and "Tone" flags. A deletion nomination was extreme and not warranted in my opinion when other options existed at Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup. 5Q5 (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being written by a single purpose account is not a reason to delete, and soapboxing is a reason to prune it back, but not delete. The person has been written about in several independent works, and so passes the general notability criteria. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2014 (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.