Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murray Newlands (2nd nomination)

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) 05:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Newlands[edit]

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

Non notable author: only one book in worldCat, though a good many promotional publications for his own firm. The article has a section on his view on social media, but there's no reason to highlight them except to promote his services. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, salt, burn with fire It failed at one AFD, and nothing has changed since - recreation needs to stop, and stop now ES &L 12:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've gone through the refs and deleted the ugliest of an ugly lot, but there's nothing left to support an article. There is much false appearance of notability, but it's basically an article about a self-appointed expert who has nothing meaningful to say and has nothing meaningful said about him. Lots and lots of bloggy puff, but no reliable sources. Even the Forbes article is borderline, and that's the only thing even close to good enough. Grayfell (talk) 03:21, 11 November 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.