Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Krefft


 * 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--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 15:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

James Krefft

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a writer, with some advertorial tinge to it but not quite blatantly enough to merit immediate speedy on that basis, which makes no strong or properly sourced claim of notability per WP:AUTHOR -- it basically amounts to James Krefft is a writer who exists, and is "sourced" only to his books' sales profiles on amazon.com (which is not valid sourcing). A writer is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists, but must be the subject of media coverage which verifies an AUTHOR pass to earn one. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. No pass of any category. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC).
 * Delete. There are zero reliable sources in the article -- especially serious for a BLP. I had difficulty even verifying the few claims made in the short article. I find nothing to satisfy WP:GNG. While there's plenty of evidence he's written books, there's nothing to indicate he meets WP:AUTHOR. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The claim that Chomsky revewed him (despite its promotional nature) is probably enough to save this from A7 speedy deletion, but it's not enough for actual notability, and I see nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- All I can see shouts NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I doubt very much that Chomsky "reviewed" a book by Kreft - I searched and found no trace of it.  Many self-promoting authors conflate "reviewed" with "blurbed".  I can find no notability for Kreft or any of his books, which may well be self-published.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * SNOW Delete as there's simply nothing to suggest the necessary better signs of a better notable article. SwisterTwister   talk  22:40, 22 April 2016 (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.