Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Peter Stroh

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. Ged UK 12:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Peter Stroh[edit]

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

I can't see significant notability, and the promotionalism, even after a little cleanup by other editors, self evident. As for notability 1/ There is obviously no notability under WP:PROF. The publications are popular, not scholarly. 2/ Looking quickly, I thought he might be notable as an author, because I remember encountering The Fifth Discipline. Checking Worldcat, I find he wasn't the author--and looking carefully at the article, he wrote at most only one chapter. There are two other less well-known books given--again, he wrote a chapter. ( The sort of minor magazine articles listed don't make for a notable author. He is apparently about to publish a book that he did write as sole author, Systems Thinking For Social Change; the publisher is Chelsea Green Publishing, a publisher of books on sustainable living, not on business management. If and only if the new book becomes a best seller would he be notable as an author.

As for promotionalism , writing an article with emphasis on the names of more important people and trying to assert one's own importance by having worked with them can best be described as advertising. The use of adjectives of praise and quality throughout adds to the effect. The usual reason for writing an autobiography here is the desire to have the public know more about oneself. Very few people are able correctly to judge their own importance. There's been considerable cleanup by Voceditenore, but the promotionalism keeps getting re-added. And there's no fundamental notability in the first place. . This article should have been deleted in 2010, when it was first submitted. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per pertinent analysis by nom. Don't have anything further to add; clearly fails WP:GNG, WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found nothing better than some Books, browser and Scholar and this would need to be restarted when better. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The actual content of the article is virtually all unsourced, though liberally laced with references to the publications of the subject or the WorldCat listings of those publications. His highest Scholar cite appears to be 10. Voceditenore wrote in 2010 "inappropriate promotional tone, no independent evidence of notability"; nothing has changed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are two ways this could pass the criteria for inclusion: (1) the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) which requires significant and in depth coverage from multiple independent sources, or (2) the alternative criteria at WP:PROF. The subject pretty comprehensively fails both at this point. I have not been able to find any independent coverage of the subject himself. I did find one pre-publication review of his forthcoming book in Publisher's Weekly here, but that isn't nearly sufficient for either an article on the book or on its author. Things may change if the book turns out to make a considerable impact accompanied by significant independent coverage of its author. At that point, and only at that point, should the article be recreated. The obvious COI and promotionalism are not in themselves a rationale for deletion. Promotionalism can be fixed, but the non-notability cannot. Voceditenore (talk) 10:22, 25 September 2015 (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.