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) 19:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Woodgate

[edit]

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

Appears to fail general notability guideline. Some claims of significance/importance, but I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources to back it up. (I think there are multiple Derek Woodgates in the sources, so that confuses matters.) Also vaguely promotional. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an autobiographical and promotional article about a non-notable individual. Mephistophelian (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mephistophelian (talk) 04:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲‍水 07:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The other persons of this name seem to be (1) a co-founder of Wellnx Life Sciences and (2) a marketing director of jeans. AllyD (talk) 13:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added two references to the article. The first is a June 2000 quote from the subject in Advertising Age (via Highbeam, subscription reqd); the second an April 2012 New Straits Times article based on an interview with the subject. Taken together, I don't think they meet the WP:BIO criteria. There are also 3rd party views on the subject in the paragraph "In the foresight world..." If - and it is a big if - these could be seen to be clear independent WP:RS statements about the subject's notability, then the sum total might amount to a Weak Keep. But it falls short on that on material to hand at the moment. AllyD (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Innovation Road Map Magazine references a book review via Amazon, a source that is unreliable and prone to widespread manipulation.
During the publisher's section in Amazon's entry on Future Frequencies, the quotation from Markley appears in its entirety: 'The creative bridging of progressive culture's provocative thinking and practical business innovations reflects the genius of Future Frequencies,' and signifies that the reference isn't reliable or independent from the promotion of the book.
In Advertising Age, the journalist's coverage of Woodgate isn't substantial, and the quotation: 'We'll take into account all the changes in the landscape, new [competitive] players, changes in the economy as well as social and political changes,' is wholly insignificant.
While the New Straits Times article is reliable and independent, a single interview isn't sufficient to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC, WP:CREATIVE, or otherwise WP:BIO, and there's nothing whatsoever that substantiates Woodgate's personal claims regarding his contributions to the field. Mephistophelian (talk) 03:54, 5 September 2012 (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.