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 no consensus. Feel free to renominate, if so desired. SarahStierch (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Wahl

[edit]
Erik Wahl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think he may be notable as an author and presenter, but this article is unclear, promotional, and over-personal. Unclear: it is not clear to me what his book is actually about, or what information he presents. The only thing I can decipher is that he produces amusing drawings of notable figures as entertainment during his presentations. Many things are asserted, but I think none of them amount to notability.

Promotional: The article was written mostly or entirely by a known paid sock-puppetting editor, and it shows. The inclusion in the lede and infobox of claimed notability in a number of occupations including the rather ill-defined one of speaker is in my experience an almost sure sign of promotionalism. Ido not see how he can be claimed to be a notable entrepreneur when he became a speaker and consultant ofter his own business failed--this is fairly common, but it's not a qualification for getting an article here.

Over-personal: The further content is essentially what he chooses to say about himself and his interests and his personal life. If he were actually famous, it might be interesting, but at this point none of this belongs in an encyclopedia. If anything here is actually notable, it should be shown by a new article written from scratch by someone with COI. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the combination of borderline notability and promotionalism makes a case for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Book reviews
Appearances coverage
I have not looked at the sources used in the article. Maybe its salvageable or needs TNT don't know. Agree with nom it should be redone by someone without a connection to the subject. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the source that show's he visited the UK? scope_creep talk 16:42 06 November 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:32, 12 November 2013 (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.
More