Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Herman (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: The prior nominations are not relevant in my view as they seem to be about different persons than the subject of this article. So they can be discounted entirely. As it turns out we have some socks here... it's ✅ that (I checked, also a few others but they don't appear involved here) Good hunch there, Dahn. So we can discount one of those if we're counting noses. But of course we don't count noses, or I would just have declared rough consensus to delete and that would be that. The arguments advanced to keep revolve around notability, as do the arguments advanced to delete. I examined the article and the sources provided, and was able to find the one of the books at Amazon, with a current sales rank of around 180,000. The notability just isn't there, though. The sources are self promotional, or blogs. Even the EB source is a blog, effectively. The arguments of Biruitorol, Hobartimus, Dahn, DGG, and Abductive make the case that Mr. Herman is not notable, better than the arguments of Michael Dormstein and the socks (no relation to Michael!!!) make the case that he is. Pretty clear cut in the end. Delete. ++Lar: t/c 03:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Dan Herman
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I can't tell if this is the same Dan Herman as in the second discussion; regardless, this one fails WP:BIO, for lack of multiple independent sources discussing him. Biruitorul Talk 18:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Sigh: another one of those self-promotional entries we never get tired of. Maybe a salting is in order. Dahn (talk) 04:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt as the 4th nomination for this article whose subeject is clearly not notable per WP:BIO. It will probably show up again with a different capitalisation or middle initial, etc., and it will be interesting to see what develops.  Drawn Some (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep this is not the same Dan Herman previously deleted. This current person being discussed is notable, article has been enhanced. Books and articles of this Herman were published in many top magazines and discussed about in other newspapers in English and Hebrew, some are not on the net. Heili M. (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See below - has Herman himself received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Moreover, I hope you do realise that the current text reads as blatant self-promotion. - Biruitorul Talk 14:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I had a look at it, in the current version it has lots of independent sources Dan_Herman Marina BBS. (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That someone has published books does not automatically confer notability upon him. Herman himself needs to be the subject of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - see WP:GNG for that. - Biruitorul Talk 14:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I check a found numerous independent sources consistant with WP:GNG that review his book Outsmart the MBA Clones: Amazon top reviewers, Wayne Hurlbert on Blog Business World , Editors' Reviewz , Jack Yan Marina BBS. (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And other sources discussing his concepts: Dan Herman noted that a successful differentiation has two defining characteristics (a) it is not imitated by others and (b) brings you unmistakable success with those who may join in to your program (buy your services)., and here (What's Next blog) . and here - According to Dan Herman, PhD, “That is precisely why—if you really invest your efforts, and are truly innovative and make a major breakthrough in improving core benefits—do you know what will happen? They’ll imitate you at warp speed. You must understand that in that case, your competitors can’t allow themselves not to imitate you. You’d do exactly the same thing. on the LeeannMorse blog . Marina BBS. (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, amazon.com reviews are not reliable sources; they breach WP:SPS. So do blogs, which is what all your other sources are. You should familiarise yourself with that policy as well: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable". Try finding "credible published materials with a reliable publication process" about Herman himself, as required by WP:RS and WP:GNG. - Biruitorul Talk 19:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. Globes and Ynet are Israeli newspapaers that published stories and\or some of this person's articles - for example here on his book on Globes and here  on Ynet (Yedioth Ahronoth). He is totally well known in Israel and Russia and other specific business communities. Heili M. (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also two universities consider him an expert in branding; ICFAI University and Bar-Ilan University, both independent institutions. I saw some articles officially published by Bar Ilan U, while visiting Bar Ilan. Heili M. (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And the reason we should take your word for his being "totally well known" and for seeing articles at Bar Ilan is...? Do see WP:BURDEN: "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". - Biruitorul Talk 13:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As user Dahn said, promotional entry. Does not appear to be notable. Hobartimus (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I've cut all of the self promotion. Right now the article is balanced and based on verifiable sources (see second paragraph). basically this man has invented a couple of cool business formulas that students relate to and search every so often. no need to delete. Michael Dormstein (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Whichever Dan Herman this is, this looks to me like a promotional article for yet another creator of buzzword type concepts and books to be sold to business students and others who want careers telling people how to market stuff they usually don't understand. Doesn't look particularly notable. As there isn't a proper reference section, I've only looked at a couple of the links. One seems to be a blog, the other to one of Herman's books. I could be wrong overall. On the other hand, I quote 'I've cut all of the self promotion' - if so, I hate to think what it was like before. Peridon (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It may be worth while checking the contributions for all the "keep" voters above - it's very, very likely that the article's creator is sockpuppeteering, and all related new articles fall under the same suspicion of promotion as Dan Herman's entry. Dahn (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I quote from the second nomination "This page is unrelated to the previous deletion). It kind of looks like he's notable, but I can't find anything that qualifies under reliable sources. He's written books, but they're published by small presses. He's written articles, but they're published on small websites." Are there actually three Dan Hermans in this series? The first one appears to have been a Students' Union officer from the comments. Could someone who was present at the second discussion say if this is the same one? Peridon (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete the business author who seems to be the subject of this particular artivcle seems a very minor one, and bases the notability on theworks being merely referred to in two college courses. This does not pass WP:PROF.   DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, promotional in the extreme. No sign of commentary by disinterested third parties. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:20, 23 September 2009 (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.