Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Meshel


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Jeffrey Meshel
Author of not notable book with Amazon.com Sales Rank: #28,881. Reads like a resume, promotes his book, companies and website. Paradigm V G-hitsG-hits for "Mercury Capital Corporation"Mercury Properties G-hits. Mercury Equity Group G hits. Not acceptable underWP:NOT, WP:SPAM, and WP:BIO :) Dlohcierekim!~

Jeffrey Meshel's book sales are not as high as they were when he was featured on national television (several times) however, he is considered parallel, albeit newly emerging, to other "field experts" such as Keith Ferrazzi (who is listed in Wikipedia, very similarly to the way Jeff Meshel is listed), and Harvey Mackay.

I am a little confused why Mr.Meshel's page is considered for deletion, when Keith Ferrazzi's is not. The issues up for debate are that it reads like a resume, citing his companies and achievements, however, Keith Ferrazzi's does the same. In addition, Keith Ferrazzi himself has commented in complete support and advocacy of Mr.Meshel's book and message. All the information is verifiable via the book's website and the on the book itself.

The issue also is that it promotes his book, company and book's website by including external links, however, Keith Ferrazzi's does the same. And if Jeff Meshel is considered by many within the field he is in to be highly reputable and along the same caliber as Keith Ferrazzi, (and Ferrazzi is allowed a posting of this nature) then a Jeff Meshel entry should be allowed as well.


 * Comment as far as I can seem, it definitely fails WP:BIO, and the nom of WP:SPAM seems pretty likely as well. Wikipedia is not a collection of links or Wikipedia is not a free webhosting service may come into play as well, and (technically) it doesn't pass WP:V either. WilyD 19:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems like his book is known well enough as a business book (which will have different sales trends), and the book wasn't published on a vanity press, so keep him as a noted author. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I see no need to invent notability policy when the existing policies cover the situation.  A Google for "jeffrey meshel" gets only 183 distinct hits, mostly book listings.  His book fails WP:BK, for lacking third-party non-trivial articles, not adapted for a motion picture, not adopted by a school as a text, etc.  Mr. Meshel fails WP:BIO for also not having multiple third-party non-trivial articles, no national awards, etc.  If the anonymous editor SamanthaSmith wishes to nom Mr. Ferrazzi for an afd, it will be considered as this one is.  Alternatively, please see WP:BIO and WP:NOT for notability guidelines to shore up this article.  Tychocat 09:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)    (talk)   15:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as per Tychocat   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  15:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails so many Policies and guidlines that I can't even list them all in 10 minutes (length of my break) -- Brian ( How am I doing? ) 16:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: This article isn't good enough for me to leap to its defence. However I've seen a few wikipedians lately citing 5-figure Amazon sales ranks as grounds for the deletion of authors. This is just being waaaay too strict. I see the comment is no longer there, but it is not so long ago that WP:BIO only required readerships around the 5,000 mark. AndyJones 13:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Tychocat. No sources that meet WP:V standards.  --Satori Son 00:01, 26 August 2006 (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.