- 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 keep. ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 02:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Carleton H. Sheets ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
nn infomercial huckster-of the four links, the first is a link to the other 3; the second mentions his name as a one-off; the third goes into some depth; the fourth is a dead link-not substantial coverage Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 10:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carleton Sheets-- Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 13:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 13:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 13:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 13:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 13:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete Nomination reason is WP:ATTACK and should be edited for tone, but figure's influence has faded in most facets and they have no long-lasting notability, so deletion is appropriate without new and notable sources rolling in.Nate • ( chatter) 04:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
-
Kintetsubuffalo is mainly targeting this article because of an edit war he got into with me over another subject. This is just
WP:BULLY. --
Amaruca (
talk) 10:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- In fact, it's not-I afd'd this before you started editwarring at a completely different article. But they both speak to your understanding of what belongs on Wikipedia and what does not.--
Kintetsubuffalo (
talk) 10:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- You expect me to believe that? Here's the deal on Carleton Sheets: He's an author and prominent lecturer who had a tremendous impact on the real estate market for better or for worse. The article needs to stay and be expounded on or at least be placed under his book title(s). WP:N -- Amaruca ( talk) 10:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- In fact, it's not-I afd'd this before you started editwarring at a completely different article. But they both speak to your understanding of what belongs on Wikipedia and what does not.--
Kintetsubuffalo (
talk) 10:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Keep I did some minor editing. The article needs citations, and needs to link the available citations to the information in the article. I do think a reasonable number of third-party sources should be findable, and the one NYT article is substantial. He is known primarily as an example of late-night TV "get rich quick" advertisers, and he appears to be substantially well-known for that (a dying breed, as the Internet as taken over that role). I did add that he has had trouble with the Better Business Bureau, and more should be added both about his fans and his detractors. A list of his books and CDs (if not overly long) would enhance the article. LaMona ( talk) 22:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 00:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 00:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. He's somewhat of a novelty has-been but notability is not temporary and Sheets has received enough independent third party coverage coverage in the past to be considered notable according to the relevant guideline. I cleaned up some of the fluff and blatant promotional language in the article but it still needs serious attention. There's more than enough material to expand the article and link it out to others. GraniteSand ( talk) 02:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 keep. ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 02:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Carleton H. Sheets ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
nn infomercial huckster-of the four links, the first is a link to the other 3; the second mentions his name as a one-off; the third goes into some depth; the fourth is a dead link-not substantial coverage Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 10:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carleton Sheets-- Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 13:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 13:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 13:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 13:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 13:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete Nomination reason is WP:ATTACK and should be edited for tone, but figure's influence has faded in most facets and they have no long-lasting notability, so deletion is appropriate without new and notable sources rolling in.Nate • ( chatter) 04:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
-
Kintetsubuffalo is mainly targeting this article because of an edit war he got into with me over another subject. This is just
WP:BULLY. --
Amaruca (
talk) 10:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- In fact, it's not-I afd'd this before you started editwarring at a completely different article. But they both speak to your understanding of what belongs on Wikipedia and what does not.--
Kintetsubuffalo (
talk) 10:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- You expect me to believe that? Here's the deal on Carleton Sheets: He's an author and prominent lecturer who had a tremendous impact on the real estate market for better or for worse. The article needs to stay and be expounded on or at least be placed under his book title(s). WP:N -- Amaruca ( talk) 10:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- In fact, it's not-I afd'd this before you started editwarring at a completely different article. But they both speak to your understanding of what belongs on Wikipedia and what does not.--
Kintetsubuffalo (
talk) 10:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Keep I did some minor editing. The article needs citations, and needs to link the available citations to the information in the article. I do think a reasonable number of third-party sources should be findable, and the one NYT article is substantial. He is known primarily as an example of late-night TV "get rich quick" advertisers, and he appears to be substantially well-known for that (a dying breed, as the Internet as taken over that role). I did add that he has had trouble with the Better Business Bureau, and more should be added both about his fans and his detractors. A list of his books and CDs (if not overly long) would enhance the article. LaMona ( talk) 22:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 00:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 00:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. He's somewhat of a novelty has-been but notability is not temporary and Sheets has received enough independent third party coverage coverage in the past to be considered notable according to the relevant guideline. I cleaned up some of the fluff and blatant promotional language in the article but it still needs serious attention. There's more than enough material to expand the article and link it out to others. GraniteSand ( talk) 02:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- 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.