Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Lani

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. ‑Scottywong | confess _ 13:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Lani[edit]

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

Bio of a psychic that was a guest on two radio programs and appeared on one episode of a TV show, none of which received any subsequent 3rd party notice. Search yields only two sources that meet criteria for WP:RS coverage for the subject: [1] and [2]. I'm not sure this adds up to enough notability conferred by "multiple reliable third-party sources" to justify a standalone article. LuckyLouie (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note an IP (98.116.123.25 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) posted: "The article makes it clear to me that the subject is a noteworthy, and highly visable in the media, individual in the world of psychic mediums. I have personnally seen him on the Bio Channel and heard him on the radio." tedder (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply being on a radio and tv show doesn't make one notable. Lani's book was published by Two Harbors Press, an imprint of Hillcrest Media Group. I can't determine if it is a vanity press or not; neither of these companies have Wikipedia articles. Cannot find news results discussing Lani. tedder (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like Hillcrest is a print-on-demand/self-publishing service: NY Times (last 'graph). Valfontis (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any reliable sources to confer notability (checked news, books, regular search). The current sources are a little hard to take seriously. One quotes a neighborhood store owner who appears to be a local expert on the paranormal: Angelikoussis thinks he is going through a healing phase with the 9/11 souls. Lani said he's learning to live with them. [3]. Another has a summary of he suffered a major heart attack and nearly died; after this near death experience he became super sensitive to the spirit world [4], whilst the final source is "Darkness Radio", a paranormal radio show, where they talk about how when he was a "Sargeant [sic]" his psychic powers awakened [5]. All in all, pretty minor mentions (hardly front page material) and sources which shouldn't be used for actual article content. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clear delete - supposedly notable psychic, yet Google News has nothing on him, not in archives, not in present day? Non-notable person who once briefly appeared on television, doesn't even seem to reach the standards of non-notability from WP:ONEEVENT, since he didn't even become notable or prominent because of the one event. Fails WP:NRVE, and fails it hard. 86.** IP (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR. I also checked Google, Google news and Google books--lacks multiple, substantive, reliable, independent third-party sources. Valfontis (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject is notable, a legitimate author will eventually write an article. No need to reward sockpuppetry and possibly payola with allowing there works to stand. Thought experiment: we allow the article to stand, the paid author gets paid, gets a new internet provider, gets a new account, and does it again. Not good. Thought experiment: we delete the article, paid author does not get paid, goes away. Or gets paid, but clients then complain that the article about them is no longer there and wants their money back. I'm going to have to !vote delete on the ground of not encouraging bad behavior. -UtherSRG (talk) 05:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject of the article is exactly the kind of lesser-known-person who pays (or whose publicist pays) for a Wikipedia article, in order to sell books, get appearance fees, and do consulting (in this case, particularly dubious consulting). We don't want to encourage that sort of thing, at all. Plus the information on the Wikipedia page seems just about the same as one would find in a quick Google search of (unreliable) web pages out there; we're thus not helping readers learn anything, just adding Wikipedia credibility, if we leave this article in place. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (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.