Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tolly Burkan

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The result was Nomination withdrawn --Aarktica 18:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tolly Burkan[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Very spammy claiming the creator "cutting-edge methods for developing human potential." Around 800 ghits. Created by article's subject Tollyburkan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) without sources.[1]Arbustoo 01:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. The article asserts importance. AFD can be done in the near future if article doesn't continue to improve. Arbustoo 02:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. 408 unique GHits, but the author of referenced works, at least one of which [2] appears to be somewhat notable. Article does need some work, admittedly.EliminatorJR ^Talk 02:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Vanity publisher? At amazon.com I get the author of 8 "books" (plus one audio tape), six aren't available. Only two are in print. Of those one is only cowriten by Tolly, and both are published by Council Oak Books and isn't anything special. If this is a notable author, I don't see WP:RS to confirm it. Arbustoo 03:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment major news sources are claimed in the article; if real, they would seem to show him as notable. Butt hey aren't provided. let the supporters of the article show them during this discussion if the article is to be kept. DGG 04:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. If the claims in the article are true: he appeared on talk shows, in the WSJ, etc., then he's indeed notable. However, none of these claims are actually backed up with citations, and the page was largely written by User:Tollyburkan (a clear conflict of interest). If actual citations are added to back up these claims of notability, change my vote to a keep and cleanup. Krimpet (talk/review) 05:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. `'mikka 15:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable per WP:BIO and promotional unsourced content - unless reliable, independent secondary sources confirming notability and some of the more ambitious claims can be provided by the closing of this AfD. Otherwise, delete, and the article can be recreated if such sources exist and are found. MastCell ^Talk 19:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep A google search turns up less than 1000 hits, but pages such as this one support his notability. There is a decent amount of evidence pointing to the fact that he helped start the firewalking trend in the USA, and he has published over 30 books. However, I could not find any archives of his Wall Street Journal appearance, so I'm not completely convinced. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He has not "published 50 books." The article claims he is mentioned in 50 books. It is uncited. I removed uncited claims as it seems to be confusing people. Arbustoo 01:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough, yet I still contend that his appearence in the published publications, as well as Wall Street Journal, an established paper source, makes him notable. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 14:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What Wall Street Journal article? When? About what? It isn't cited. Arbustoo 23:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Look at the links I provided above. In any case, I can't find a copy of the article itself online, as Wall Street Journal won't let me access their archives without having an account with them (which I don't). However, he has been published in the media elsewhere (see here). This leads me to believe he meets the suggested criterion of under special cases of notability. One of them mentions he appeared on a TV show on the Fox Family channel called Exploring the Unknown. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article would benefit greatly from revision and expansion to include some of the 17 sources listed at this Google News Archive search. Alansohn 06:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Why don't you use those sources and include them? Some of them are very trivial however. Arbustoo 00:46, 16 April 2007 (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.