Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Nicholls

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Nicholls[edit]

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

This article reads like an advertisement. A search of the Internet for more information suggests strongly that the subject is not notable in the sense of Wikipedia. Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Having searched for spelling variations, I have noticed that our similarly-titled articles Steve Nichols and Stephen Nichols are also poorly-sourced, so to anyone searching, please keep a note of any sources you come across related to them as well as him.—S Marshall T/C 12:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless much better third-party verifiability of noteworthiness comes up - David Gerard (talk) 12:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A search has found numerous sources that were not originally in the article. High Beam comes up short but a search of Google for "Steve Nicholls social media" brings up sources such as Industry Week and CNN news. There are many Steve Nicholls out there so you need to narrow your search by putting more than just his name in the search. --Morning277 (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Morning277 is the original creator and sole-author of this article. Perhaps it would be helpful to explain how you came across Mr. Nicholls and made the decision to make a biography about him, so that we might better understand the claim of notability.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I did not realize who recommended the deletion. Regardless, I believe that the article does meet notability guidelines. I came across the article Here after looking up books on social media. I came across his book, then him, then Wiki. Was surprised as I thought the original article was good but it was denied due to lack of sources as the only ones it contained were self published I believe. I am writing from my phone so when I get to a computer I will do more research and hopefully come up with more reliable sources. Also, as you say it is written like an ad, any suggestions on how to make it read less like an ad would be appreciated. Thanks. --Morning277 (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Note I found the CNN link. It's a blog post. Nothing wrong with that, but does little in my view to help establish notability. We need independent third party references about Mr. Nicholls to help with that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Citations - I agree that there must be independent and reliable sources to support notability. I found additional sources that I believe count towards notability. There is one of him giving an interview on Money Sense Radio where he is cited as a "pioneer in social media for business."[1] He is also featured in Industry News Weekly.[2] The Courier Journal quotes him in an article (this is borderline passing mention but I believe that it would help establish notability).[3] Here is an article in Tech Journal that quotes him.[4] There is one from Philly.com but it is a reprint of the St.Louse dispatch (not to be used as an additional source but I believe it lends more credibility to the St. Louis Dispatch article that is cited by Carrite below.[5]--Morning277 (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually the Courier Journal cited by Carrite so I believe the St. Louis Dispatch could be counted as an additional source. --Morning277 (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 16:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and wikify ~~Delete~~ The book might squeak by wp:notability but this is not an article on the book I saw no suitable coverage on the individual. The writing looks like a pure advertisement/resume. North8000 (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my recommendation from "delete" to "keep and wikify" due to additional sourcing which has been added. I'll try to wikify the wording a bit. North8000 (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked wording a bit North8000 (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for cleaning up the article.--Morning277 (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Cited as an expert on Social Media in This Piece from the Louisville, KY Courier-Journal. Carrite (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment - I have added additional sources that were found online including the Huffington Post, the Courier Journal, etc. Not sure what additional is needed to show his notability.--Morning277 (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Things he has written and quotes by him are not the same as coverage of him. I don't see enough independent RSs with enough depth of coverage to meet WP:BASIC or WP:AUTHOR. Novaseminary (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is promotional, an advertisement rather than a biography. The Courier-Journal article quotes him as an expert but says nothing about him. The other references fail to establish his notability, whether using WP:AUTHOR, WP:BASIC, or WP:GNG as the standard. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ) (cont) Join WER 15:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sound very self-promotional; plus the subject fails WP: BIO and is therefore non-notable. Electric Catfish 23:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TThe book is self-published, by a vanity publisher called Bookinars, [6] that specializes in works intended to increase business revenue. The book is listed by worldcat as being in a total of 5 libraries only. As n author, he is therefore totally non-notable. Being cited as an expert in local or regional papers is a very insecure basis for importance--it really just means the article is likely to be PR-based. DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 22 August 2012 (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.