Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave VanHoose

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) 20:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dave VanHoose[edit]

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

Non-notable speaker. All sources listed are from sites advertising his services. I made a google search and was unable to find any articles about him from neutral sources. LionMans Account (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The reliable sources include Forbes, Tampa Bay Times and Tampa Bay Business Journal. The Tampa Bay Times article is pretty unflattering, painting a picture of a huckster living the high life and defaulting on debts. In any case I don't think these sources alone can justify an article and if they did it would mainly be about his business failures. The books are non notable and while there is one positive comment in Forbes it's not by a journalist more of an opinion piece. I think Mr. VanHoose would be better off without a Wikipedia article at this point. -- GreenC 08:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think that's a Forbes.com blog - rather less notable than the Forbes name indicates. I think we're operating under wp:BLP and in specific wp:NPF here. "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures". I'm leaning towards him being borderline notable at best and with the BLP issues combining for a delete. Neonchameleon (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everybody else, including the nominator. They may seem like good sources, but I don't think they are reliable though. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:14, 25 December 2013 (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.