Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin P. Hardy

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin P. Hardy[edit]

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

Probably not yet notable: half the refs are to his own work, and most of the rest are by one particular Forbes "contributor", who is not a member of their staff, and therefore no more reliable than a blogger. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. This is obviously a stub article that needs more work. TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Stubs, whether they "need more work" or not, are not automatically entitled to stick around; there actually has to be a credible notability claim in the first place, as well as at least some evidence that the depth and breadth of reliable source coverage needed to support it at least exists even if it isn't all in the article yet. But this meets neither of those requirements: the notability claim boils down to "he exists", with no evidence shown of anything that would make his existence more notable than the norm among people who do what he does, and the referencing is mainly to primary sources that cannot assist in showing notability — while the fewer sources that do assist in showing notability (Forbes) are not being used to support any actual substance, but are simply piled up as a reference bomb metasourcing the mundane statement that Forbes has written about him. But that's not how referencing shows notability either — the reference has to support a statement about the context that the coverage was given for, not just a statement that the reference exists. There's also a direct conflict of interest here, as the article is a clear WP:AUTOBIO by the subject himself — but even if he can be shown as notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, the path to getting one does not pass through writing it himself. At best this is a blow it up and start over situation; at worst it's WP:TOOSOON for a person who may clear our notability standards in the future once his book is published but does not yet pass them today. Bearcat (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Instead of a potential WP:PERMASTUB, I'd rather see it gone. If and when he becomes notable AND if someone other than himself does the writing, it will stand a better chance of survival. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Neither the article nor sources indicate any notability of the subject. Sources are mostly primary. As nom stated all the Forbes articles are written by a "Contributor" and article carries Forbes' standard disclaimer. Medium.com is pretty much a blog host and accepts just about anything someone wants to write about and being the number 1 writer on it certainly isn't notable. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. CBS527^Talk 00:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2017 (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.