Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Wile


 * 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. Michig (talk) 10:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Anthony Wile

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable, self-publisher (of his own book, websites etc). Seems to be a fringe player and has no obvious coverage in mainstream news etc. In fact, the only reliable source that I can find that may refer to him is this. Sitush (talk) 10:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Article has a bunch of primary sources and wordpress blogs, but zero independent reliable sources. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. - SudoGhost 18:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Not well enough referenced to show the required coverage. (I know it's hard luck, but plenty of self-published coverage doesn't count.) I'm slightly surprised to see this article in an "Elite Propaganda Mill" (quoted from The Daily Bell), so perhaps someone is misunderstanding our procedures on referencing as well as the powers of administrators and the general supervision by the community of all things here. Peridon (talk) 12:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Utterly fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't find sufficient independent refs either. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - [Embarrassing confession] I am the editor who mistakenly moved it to main-space. Please allow me to submit one quick enquiry. Would it be okay if we moved it back to Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Anthony Wile or placed a template on top of the page that will read it's a “misplaced submission” which it blatantly is, instead of deleting it? Also that way it would give us some more time to save this page (though I am unsure if this page needs saving). Should you guys disagree, I will accept the consensus. P.S. I am relatively new at this (i.e. reviewing submissions) and it was unintentional, so please indulge my inadeptness. This query seemed incumbent upon me because I exacerbated the whole mess by moving it to namespace.  Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 12:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest that letting this run its course will be the most efficient path. Don't worry about moving the odd weak article into the mainspace. I've done it too. (And thanks for fixing my missing word above. Appreciated.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2012 (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.