Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Baer


 * 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.  So Why  11:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Jay Baer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Highly promotional, blogger and definitely not encyclopedic notable personality. nothing significant has achieved. 1000 of such bloggers are there who just write a blog column in popular media channels. Light2021 (talk) 10:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 11:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 11:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 11:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- WP:PROMO for an insigninifcant marketing executive and author. Note external links in body -- a hallmark of such promotional articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- WP:AUTHOR subject is widely cited by their peers in the online marketing industry. He has been an author of three significant books.  He has been featured in tech and business media such as Forbes, Fast Company, Harvard Business Review, Entrepreneur, NBC News, and CNBC. I agree that a few external links to his own websites should be cleaned from his entry, but this fact alone does not merit deletion. Benergetic (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Can you cite any in-depth coverage made by media not some press coverage or routine online writing ? Light2021 (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * All the mentioned coverage are articles published in general, nothing in-depth coverage found on single source from nay media.Light2021 (talk) 07:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment -- three out of four sources above are to the subject himself, while the fourth is to his speaker bureau. Not independent coverage by any means. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  08:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - shilling for a shilly shill, using a charity illegally to spread his name. Get off our damn lawn, kid. Bearian (talk) 00:45, 18 July 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.