Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Schenker


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 06:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Jason Schenker

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

None of the sources provided are independent of the subject. This seems like a promotional peacock article. fails WP:NAUTHOR "bestseller" on amazon is not reliable as per WP:NBKCRIT WP:BKCRIT. Fails WP:GNG. Domdeparis (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong keep article in question clearly passes WP:GNG as subject of article has been covered by media which is reliable, provides assumption and independent of subject. I do worry about this nomination, it is as if nominator of article is biased or does not have proper knowledge of Wikipedia laws and polices. Celestina007 (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete in its present form. For an article of this length, there are quite a few references - but look closer. Most of them are by the subject, or about them. A list of articles that the subject wrote, a list of books by the subject on Amazon, a linkedin page, links to events at which the subject spoke... None of these show that the subject is notable under our rules. They prove that the subject exists - which is good, certainly for them. But that doesn't mean they're notable. If the subject has been covered in media, links to those articles would be lovely - as none are present in the article as it stands. There is one link to a Bloomberg article, but that doesn't really do anything either since - wait for it - the subject writes for Bloomberg. If we're to keep this article, then we need to have more information from reliable and independent sources. I don't see anything like that so far. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 19:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete, obvious vanity pageRudyLucius (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   Versace1608   Wanna Talk? 22:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong keep The person is clearly notable as one of the world leaders in his field. More independent sources have been added that he has been covered in. NawfalPatel (talk) 20:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep This person has been quoted in The New York Times and Wall Street Journal multiple times.  He is a notable person.  A quick google search of his name shows that he is one of the top economics forecasters in the world.  The article passes wikipedias rules and should stay published. Texaslonghorn2015 (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The above account was blocked as a sock of NawfalPatel at SPI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong delete I vote delete if only because NawfalPatel is a SPA and it's irritating to see a single strong keep from a SPA. Then to see Texaslonghorn2015 added as an account to vote keep, only to be removed as an obvious sock puppet for NawfalPatel. Come on, this is ridiculous and is so obviously WP:NOT. I agree with  Versace1608  ... vanity account. Whoever reviews this, please favor votes from real editors! Jeff Quinn (talk) 05:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment As the nominator I'd just like to point out that the only other keep vote is from a User who created an article that was nominated for deletion and I !voted to delete. Within a few minutes of a comment here that I left on the discussion page they then undid a speedy that I had added (that was subsequently speedily deleted), accused me of being offensive to another user (someone with whom in reality I am working with) and made a strong keep on this article and insinuated that I was biased and/or ignorant of "laws" (sic) and policies. Domdeparis (talk) 10:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete There doesn't seem to be significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I am seeing a lot of quotes by the subject, but nothing much in detail - what the subject achieved and what made them notable. The votes by the SPA make me wonder if the intention is to promote. At this point, I will go with a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:05, 6 March 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.