Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Manross


 * 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

George Manross

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No sources are cited. Article thus fails WP:V. Subject appears to fail WP:BASIC and WP:NAUTHOR as cited books appear to be trivial works with no indication of widespread use. Subject also appears to fail WP:PROF. The article is highly promotional in tone. A Google failed to yield anything that rings the notability bell. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Agreed that this article is vague (no sources) and very promotional in tone. The subject does not seem notable at all. This seems like an obvious candidate for deletion.Wobzrem (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. He is not notable per se nor for accomplishments and article has no sources. Agricola44 (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC).
 * Delete. The article appears to be claiming notability for his activities as a pollster rather than as a former academic, so WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR would seem to be the more appropriate criterion to use than WP:PROF. But it doesn't make much difference because we don't have evidence for any of these. And I agree with the nominator re the promotional tone; even if notability were present this would require significant rewriting. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:23, 18 January 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.