Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Locke


 * 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 keep. Sandstein 19:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Locke

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Pure advertising/spam. The article's body is just a small paragraph and seems to be a simple excuse to list two dozens of external links on the page. Note that the article was speedy-deleted twice already before this third recreate. Kariteh 14:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 *  Delete Keep - subject of article does not meet WP:BIO. Should probably slap a protect to stop recreation as well. A bit more research suggests that the subject possibly meets WP:BIO, but his page needs severe cleanup. ~  Cr∞nium  07:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Looks like a vanity self-publication article for promotional purposes. --WebHamster 15:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I only checked the Forbes article - that one seems real. If his work appears in many respectable journals, he's a notable journalist. Does it? The article claims as much. --Dweller 15:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - Per WP:BLP Needs mention in mainstream media, interviews with other bloggers is not enough. WP:BLP requires especially careful requirements for WP:RS than other subjects. However, given this individual's authorship of multiple articles in mainstream publication, notability could well be established and WP:SNOW on first appearances is inappropriate here. Article should not be deleted simply because it contains promotional materials in its current form. Wikipedia's criterion is objectively verifiable notability, not subjective intentions. This individual may well be a notable professional promoter.  The fact that marketing and promotion is his business is irrelevant. We can certainly tone down the article to make more neutral and less self-promoting, remove improper links, and deal with anyone who repeatedly attempts to remove critical material or adds puffery, but these are not reasons for deletion. --Shirahadasha 16:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep but clean up, as Shiradasha suggests. -- Orange Mike 16:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep but rewrite. I think he has enough reliable sources to assert notability. There are definite POV and cleanup issues, but even so I think this article can stand on its own. I thought about sending this to the ICU, but I don't think it's in that bad a condition. Realkyhick 16:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and repair per Shirahadasha. I would have removed the speedy tag if Dweller hadn't beat me to it. Like Realkyhick says, it's not that bad and the guy really is widely published. A bit short on info in the articles "about" the subject (two are about the Cluetrain Manifesto as much as the subject), but enough for a bio if eked out with the interviews and verifiable info on his writings. More than sources, this needs tough love from a disinterested editor so it can become a decent bio. The linkfarm should certainly be culled, but I have no idea which should stay and which should go. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is highly unlikely that the internets would exist as it does if The Cluetrain Manifesto had never been written. Searls' and Weinberger's 'pedia articles have never been slated for deletion, why single out Locke?  He's written many more books than the others combined.  As far as he being some sort of marketer or pr guy, take a look at his writing.  He's anything but.  I agree, the article needs some intervention, cleanup and editing from some more neutral editor, but let it be someone who is willing to put in the time and not peruse one article and make a request for speedy deletion based upon inadequate conjecture.  Or worse yet, from someone who has a personal grudge, which could be the case here.  TreeShap 05:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - It should be noted that the above comment was written by the re-creator of the article, and is also the major contributor to it. Possibly a case of WP:COI ~  Cr∞nium  15:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I don't believe there's a WP:COI here. I am a noob and am willing to listen to advice, take part in discussions and try to learn how to edit more impartially.  But: this doesn't change the facts.  The verifiable Facts.  I want to follow the rules. "Editors who may have a conflict of interest are not barred from participating in articles and discussion of articles where they have a conflict of interest, but must be careful when editing in mainspace. Compliance with this guideline requires discussion of proposed edits on talk pages and avoiding controversial edits in mainspace." There is certainly no criteria for deletion here.  Cleanup, yes.  Deletion, absurd  and perhaps personal.  TreeShap 04:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - Please refrain from accusing us of "personal grudges" without foundation, remember WP:AGF ~  Cr∞nium  07:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - Point taken. Perhaps the article could be shorter, include less links and follow the model of the other authors of The Cluetrain Manifesto?  Searls and Weinberger.  Any suggestions?  TreeShap 06:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 22:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep for Cluetrain Manifesto. -- Groggy Dice T | C 22:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. The Cluetrain Manifesto has its own article, and notability is not inherited. Kariteh 09:50, 15 September 2007 (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.