Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Thomas (motivational speaker)


 * 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 no consensus. Courcelles (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Eric Thomas (motivational speaker)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

promotional article on a motivational speaker.There is no notability here in the first place--the references are almost entirely local. There are no publications or other accomplishments.The promotional element is seen most clear in the section on quotes; what has this individual  said or done so important that an encycopedia should include them?  DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep clearly meets qualification for inclusion based on the sources.--JumpLike23 (talk) 05:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would like to make it known that @ DGG has proposed half a dozen of my articles for deletion (several unsuccessfully) and is attacking my writing as promotional. Please help; this experience with this user is my first very negative experience on wikipedia.--JumpLike23 (talk) 05:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * see the coi noticeboard at Not that all of these are necessarily coi, but I can;t find a better place, and they all have similar problems. I'd use the BLPN, except they are not all bios.  DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC).


 * If Wikipedia was only about reporting "almost entirely global" information, that would probably save 90% of disc space ;). Motivation is nothing local. That's something that need to be shared across cultures, continents.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete for clear reasons given by DGG. Promotional puffery. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC).
 * Keep - Easily passes GNG based on he sources already showing in the footnotes, including a feature article on mlive.com, which is the website of a group of very, very mainstream Michigan newspapers. If here is puffery in the tone, that is an editing matter — but this is a very, very clear keep under our General Notability Guideline, which calls for multiple examples of substantial coverage in independently published sources of presumed reliability. We see these here. Carrite (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep for now I suppose as although the article could be better, I found links at Books, News, browser and Highbeam the current article at least seems acceptable for now. SwisterTwister   talk  06:50, 4 October 2015 (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.