Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Shafer


 * 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.  So Why  20:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Dan Shafer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Shameless self-promotion from two COI editors. Content suggests notability, google search does not throw anything up that supports that notion. Subject has written some books which only give generic results (amazon & google book listings). There don't seem to be any independent sources discussing the author or their works. Rayman60 (talk) 02:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  03:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  03:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  03:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  03:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * DElete. No pass of WP:Prof on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC).

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per nom.--TM 10:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The person has recently passed away. Self promotion is no longer in order. The person is indeed an important technology author. Consensus on this exists in xTalk and Apple communities. It is useful to be able to look up the person later, if anyone finds one of his books or forum messages and wants to know more about him. The person has authored books in multiple fields, rather than "only" HyperCard or "only" Apple. There is ample reason to keep the entry. If no more votes in favour of deletion are posted here within the next 6 months, I propose to lift the Afd status and keep the article. Xtalkprogrammer (talk) 12:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I believe the previous commenter's vote should be invalidated due to lack of understanding of notability and the AfD process. Nothing concrete to support the viewpoint (e.g. sources, coverage, references), just a hunch that the person is sort of worthy of an article based on their feelings of who should have an article (i.e. outside of defined notability guidelines which exist for this very reason). Rayman60 (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  07:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC) I don't care about my vote as such, but no one can deny that self-promotion (see above) can no longer be an argument in the discussion. Xtalkprogrammer (talk) 01:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete just because the person is dead does not mean the article is no longer an act in self promotion. The very fact that they died but the article still lists them as living shows they are not very notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 7 July 2017 (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.