Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Cravit

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. Sandstein 05:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Cravit[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)

As an author, Cravit appears to be not notable per WP:NAUTHOR as there has been very little coverage or commentary on his work in independent, reliable sources. While apparently a successful businessman, the only sources I can find do not convey notability; YouTube videos, LinkedIn profiles and the like. This is the only coverage in a major publication of anything he's said and I don't think that passes the bar for significant coverage. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. However, if it is kept, it will need to be rewritten to remove POV. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is advertorial, not encyclopedic, and neither businesspeople nor authors get an automatic free pass over our notability standards for businesspeople or authors just because their own primary source web presence technically verifies that they exist. A person needs to be the subject of reliable source media coverage, in sources other than his own employer's self-published content about itself, to earn inclusion here — but none of the sources here are cutting it in the slightest. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is bad enough that we have an inordinately large number of articles on living people, and that 1986 is the year we have the most articles on people born in that year. We do not need to add fuel to the extremes of presentism by having an article on a person who mouths off about how things are unprecedented and unlike the past, how people can't afford to retire, yadda yadda yadda, without any actual perspective on the past, and just sort of taking his anecdotal impressions of how things were 20 years ago and claiming they have changed. This is lousy, lousy scholarship and we definately do not need to engage in promoting it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:28, 21 June 2018 (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.