Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Mills (American Management Consultant)

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. Randykitty (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Mills (American Management Consultant)[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)

Highly promotional article that currently reads like an autobio crossed with a LinkedIn page. Even with massive cleanup, however, there's no evidence that this individual would meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Sources are all primary, mainly social networks and personal sites, and I can't find a single decent secondary source from my WP:BEFORE, let alone the numerous, substantial, independent coverage needed. Hugsyrup (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This was originally a sandbox creation and submitted for review. I reviewed it and it had no merits then and it was denied publication to mainspace and speedily deleted as unambiguous advertising. This version is longer and better organised but has no more merit. Fails WP:GNG. Reads like a paid editing job and reeks of WP:COI. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 43,533 bytes of likely self-promotion (or paid editing) unsupported by any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Fails WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
deletedeletedeletedelete. Massive promo piece and almost certainly UPE without any real claims (and what is there is greatly, uh, let's say "bolstered".) Praxidicae (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What the nominator said. QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With a little research, I found the two books this individual authored / edited on Google Books (search "Collaborative Engineering and the Internet: Linking Product Development Partners via the Web" and "Applied Innovation Master Book" on https://books.google.com). It turns out the first book was pusblished by a well-known entity (SME International - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SME_(society)). Does that mean this individual meets the WP:GNG requirements for notability? Curious about that since WP:BEFORE Section D Point 1 states "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, etc.", and WP:BEFORE Section D Point 3 states "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination." So I'm wondering if proper due diligence was done here prior to nominating. In particular, I am confused about the statement "I can't find a single decent secondary source from my WP:BEFORE" when this information was so easily available on Google Books. Yhannot (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear you are confused. To clarify, when I said "I can't find a single decent secondary source", I was referring to being unable to find decent secondary sources. The book existing on Google is not a secondary source. The publisher having a Wikipedia article is not a secondary source. So to put your mind at rest, yes proper due diligence was done and no, finding the book on google does not mean the individual meets the requirements for notability. Hugsyrup (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a TON of advertising, and now the creator is involved in a sockpuppet investigation. YIKES. Almy (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I am not the creator of this article, nor do I even know the creator of this article. I was simply asking an objective question about a process. Yhannot (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is debatable: like others cannot find much in the way of SIGCOV. Promotional: possible WP:PAID. Eagleash (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is almost entirely promotional with no real notability. Could even be speedied per CSD G11. Highway 89 (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional with no real substance. — Mainly 20:18, 19 July 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.