Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian McDermott


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 21:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Ian McDermott

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

BLP that has been unsourced for over 7 years. No significant coverage in reliable sources found. Michig (talk) 08:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Far too long for an article to stand without sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 04:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Not only unsourced, but the history of this article shows it's been clearly promotional throughout its history. It has NPOV issues as it no longer mentions what it used to emphasize - his NLP methods, which seem to be "a largely discredited pseudoscience," according to that WP article anyway. Yet NLP is all over his ITS website. NPOV can be fixed, but this suggests to me someone has been trying to maintain the promotional nature of this article. It has to go. Dcs002 (talk) 05:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Plenty of time has gone by with plenty of opportunities for any interested editor to add references to reliable sources showing notability. Unreferenced BLPs should be deleted at this point, in my opinion, unless coverage in reliable sources can be furnished. It hasn't been. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems to be the work of two SLA's O23M45, ALFA69 LaMona (talk) 03:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources; not notable. AAA3AAA (talk) 08:56, 21 August 2014 (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.