Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Ulwick (3rd nomination)


 * 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. It appears that consensus on this article has changed (probably as a result of stricter sourcing requirements for BLP's) since 2006. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Ulwick
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Pure self promotion of a non-notable business consultant. Google news shows no substantial coverage of this person or his books apart from a huge number of press releases. The article is unreferenced and the subject fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE. Editors in previous discussions claimed that his books have won notable awards, but no reliable evidence of such awards has ever been presented. Pburka (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  — frankie (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  00:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Delete WP:NOTADVERTISING. Sources associated with subject, so can't establish notability.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - as article stands today it seems pure self-promoting ADVERT but if references can be found I'd be happy to change my mind. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 23:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment As it is, the article is on the way to be deleted. However, with two previous non consensus closures, more than two opinions on this matter would be appreciated. --Tone 23:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete barring additional sourcing, but with a note to at least a little sourcing available through one Computerworld article. .  Some of the previous AfD keep rationales appear to have based on an error, conflating book marketing blurbs for "independent reviews".  With some additional, truly independent sourcing, I'd be open to revising my opinion, however. --joe deckertalk to me 17:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete ... but keep Outcome-Driven Innovation (his approach to innovation). A quick Google Book search shows many independent mentions; that's the only context he's mentioned in. --Macrakis (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as lacking in-depth coverage from independent reliable third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:53, 15 November 2011 (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.