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.
Résumé-like biography of an academic and filmmaker, not
properly sourced as passing notability criteria for academics or fimmakers. This has a decidedly advertorialized writing tone, and is referenced entirely to
primary sources that are not support for notability, with not a shred of real
WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him in real media shown at all. As always, Wikipedia is
WP:NOTLINKEDIN — the key to getting a Wikipedia article is not to write it in a résumé-like tone that resembles the subject writing about himself, but to show that he's been a subject of coverage and analysis by third parties.
Bearcat (
talk) 19:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete : Does not meet notability based on lack of citations. he also doesn't have many academic citations in Google Scholar.
Hkkingg (
talk) 06:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete as
vanispamcruftisement. The books listed under "Selected Works" were all self-published and have not been significant or influential in any documentable way. The 48 Laws of Happiness has a review on Kirkus, but it's Kirkus Indie, which
doesn't count. This would be a case where
WP:AUTHOR is more indicative than
WP:PROF (i.e., low citation counts would be beside the point), but
WP:AUTHOR isn't met either. And the prose needs to die in a fire.
XOR'easter (
talk) 15:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. The heavily promotional writing could plausibly be cleaned up, but without reliably-published reviews of his books we have no pass of
WP:AUTHOR, nor any evidence of other notability criteria. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 21:02, 10 May 2023 (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.
Résumé-like biography of an academic and filmmaker, not
properly sourced as passing notability criteria for academics or fimmakers. This has a decidedly advertorialized writing tone, and is referenced entirely to
primary sources that are not support for notability, with not a shred of real
WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him in real media shown at all. As always, Wikipedia is
WP:NOTLINKEDIN — the key to getting a Wikipedia article is not to write it in a résumé-like tone that resembles the subject writing about himself, but to show that he's been a subject of coverage and analysis by third parties.
Bearcat (
talk) 19:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete : Does not meet notability based on lack of citations. he also doesn't have many academic citations in Google Scholar.
Hkkingg (
talk) 06:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete as
vanispamcruftisement. The books listed under "Selected Works" were all self-published and have not been significant or influential in any documentable way. The 48 Laws of Happiness has a review on Kirkus, but it's Kirkus Indie, which
doesn't count. This would be a case where
WP:AUTHOR is more indicative than
WP:PROF (i.e., low citation counts would be beside the point), but
WP:AUTHOR isn't met either. And the prose needs to die in a fire.
XOR'easter (
talk) 15:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. The heavily promotional writing could plausibly be cleaned up, but without reliably-published reviews of his books we have no pass of
WP:AUTHOR, nor any evidence of other notability criteria. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 21:02, 10 May 2023 (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.