Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Case Greenfield


 * 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 speedy delete. per CSD G7: author requested deletion Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Case Greenfield

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not appear to be a notable author. Searches for both him and his book result mostly in false positives, and no reliable coverage. The references in the article are either non-independent or are not coverage at all. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - As for the book Business Model Generation which is mentioned in the article, searches for it fail to find anything other than incidental mentions in articles; I couldn't even find much that would confirm if the book is a certified best-seller, although this could partially be due to its name being rather tricky to search. Even then, the mentions it does receive mostly mention a certain Alex Osterwalder as its primary author, rather than Greenfield (in fact, other than Greenfield's website, I couldn't even find any source which suggests that he was involved in the book at all). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The reference does not substantiate the claim that his book was "awarded Best Management Book of The Year". I cannot find sufficient sources that would suggest the subject meets the general notability guideline. Self-promoting vanity article. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2016 (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.