Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Adams (author)

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 speedy delete. At this time there are way too many concerns about copyright violations still existing on the page and that it's non-recoverable. With the consensus currently leaning for deletion, I would encourage a userspace draft and a consultation before returning this to the mainspace. Sources in the article can be provided on request, but the article must be rewritten from scratch. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Adams (author)[edit]

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

Promotional bio, full of unjustified superlatives. He is not a professor--he has been visiting professor a 3 universities--these are temporary positions--we seems to have no regular appointment anywhere. Author of three non notable books, and this article seems designed to promote them. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A highly promotional article about a non-notable author. Blatant PR talk like "an award-winning campus-wide initiative to accelerate startups in taking their innovations to market" could be cleaned up if he was truly notable, but I see no evidence that he is. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the nomination is exact with the concerns and there's simply nothing for actual convincing of genuine notability, and I believe there's some attempts at shoehorning this by mentioning the major football player soon. Regardless, still nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have tried to address the major concerns that the editors have on this article. Addressing concerns by Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it and SwisterTwister talk, I added references from various reputable, national news sources, i.e. Inc. Magazine, AOL News, and The Huffington Post, that substantiate that he is a notable, recognized expert in his field. I have removed all editorial adjectives as per Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it comments. On the subject of notability as an author as per DGG ( talk ) and Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it, one of his three books, New Venture Creation: Entrepreneurship for the 21st Century (McGraw-Hill, 2011), is in its 10th edition. On the subject of regular appointment as per DGG ( talk ), I added into the article that in addition to being the founder, he has also been the director of Texas Venture Labs since 2010, as well as the founder. Also, he is a senior lecturer the McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas at Austin. As per the request to add "more links to other articles to help integrate it into the encyclopedia", I have added over 20 more links to the article. Any other suggestions for change or improvement would be greatly appreciated. Gracephoto (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What has been added is still not convincing or sufficient as it's still trivial and unconvincing; also, there's no inherited notability from anything or anyone else, regardless of his connections there. SwisterTwister talk 22:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is actally needed to show notability as an Author are reviews of his books in major review sources, such as major newspapers, magazines, or professional journals. But you additionally will needto remove parts like belong only in a job application, eg. "His fundraising experience includes public and private equities, limited partnerships, corporations, and philanthropy." DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful information. I will add references to reviews and edit accordingly and hope for the best. Thanks for taking the time to give me feedback - much appreciated Gracephoto (talk) 04:55, 7 December 2016 (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.