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. J04n(
talk page) 21:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete Far too long for an article to stand without sources.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 00:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
NorthAmerica1000 04:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete Not only unsourced, but the history of this article shows it's been clearly promotional throughout its history. It has NPOV issues as it no longer mentions what it used to emphasize - his
NLP methods, which seem to be "a largely discredited pseudoscience," according to that WP article anyway. Yet NLP is all over his ITS website. NPOV can be fixed, but this suggests to me someone has been trying to maintain the promotional nature of this article. It has to go.
Dcs002 (
talk) 05:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete Plenty of time has gone by with plenty of opportunities for any interested editor to add references to reliable sources showing notability. Unreferenced BLPs should be deleted at this point, in my opinion, unless coverage in reliable sources can be furnished. It hasn't been.
Cullen328Let's discuss it 06:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete No sources; not notable.
AAA3AAA (
talk) 08:56, 21 August 2014 (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.
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. J04n(
talk page) 21:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete Far too long for an article to stand without sources.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 00:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
NorthAmerica1000 04:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete Not only unsourced, but the history of this article shows it's been clearly promotional throughout its history. It has NPOV issues as it no longer mentions what it used to emphasize - his
NLP methods, which seem to be "a largely discredited pseudoscience," according to that WP article anyway. Yet NLP is all over his ITS website. NPOV can be fixed, but this suggests to me someone has been trying to maintain the promotional nature of this article. It has to go.
Dcs002 (
talk) 05:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete Plenty of time has gone by with plenty of opportunities for any interested editor to add references to reliable sources showing notability. Unreferenced BLPs should be deleted at this point, in my opinion, unless coverage in reliable sources can be furnished. It hasn't been.
Cullen328Let's discuss it 06:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete No sources; not notable.
AAA3AAA (
talk) 08:56, 21 August 2014 (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.