Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Baldoni


 * 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   keep. v/r - TP 18:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

John Baldoni

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Page should be deleted. Is self promotion. Subject is not notable. Does not meet Wikipedia article requirements. — Realitycheck29 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment - possible bad faith nomination. Nominator's first edit was to vandalize the article. That being said, the article does appear to have some COI issues (due to the edits from Jbaldoni52v) and needs some serious editing, but the references from the Harvard Business Review (if real) would lead me to say Keep this article. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Needs some cleanup and rewriting for neutral POV but does appear to meet notability guidelines.  Several Times (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I apologize.  I did not initially intend to "vandalize" article.  I was not familiar with procedure for removing pages.  This article is about a "leadership development consultant" without notability.  There are thousands of "leadership development consultants", does each one get a Wikipedia entry?  Notability does not come from self publishing things on the internet.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability_in_Wikipedia This article does not meet the characteristics for an encyclopedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia#Characteristics. Subject is not notable enough to be in an encyclopedia, and appears to be self promoting.
 * Questions of notability aside, self-promotion usually isn't grounds for deletion unless the article really wouldn't survive removal of all the material written from a non-neutral point of view. Several Times (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. It seems that the entire article about this subject was written by the subject. I don't think there can be a real neutral point of view writing this subject since it is probably not a notable subject. Majority of information about subject available on internet appears to be published by the subject. These entries are what I consider notable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams_%28disambiguation%29  Would you make another section on the John Adams page for "leadership consultants" if a John Adams who does that type of stuff wants a page?  Hypothetically, I meet a janitor at a museum.   I think he is very interesting, so I make 30 different webpages about him and then make a wikipedia biography of him.  Does that article meet notability requirements?
 * If you think John Adams the janitor or John Adams the leadership consultant are interesting people, sure, your opinion alone probably isn't enough to justify inclusion in Wikipedia. I won't debate that.  The qualities and accomplishments of any John Adams need to be backed up by proof from verifiable sources.  That being said, this article does contain plenty of poorly referenced material, if only because some of them are simply blog entires.  These are not the only sources available nor are they the only ones provided.  With some work - potentially even reducing the article to a stub - this material could be encyclopedic. Several Times (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete The subject fails WP:AUTH and WP:ACADEMIC. I cannot see that blog posts on the Harvard Business Review's website constitute notability as an author or academic. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 12:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This author is published by AMACOM and McGraw-Hill - comments about just being self-published on the internet are misinformed. Please see bibliography and check the references for confirmation. homermcness —Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC).
 * The fact that he's published doesn't indicate that his writings are significant enough to meet WP:AUTH. The subject is a blogger who has written a few text books. That doesn't convey notability. In university I was taught by professors who'd had a number of books published but I wouldn't consider them notable enough for a Wikipedia article. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 21:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. I feel the subject fulfills the notability guidelines within his field. The article would improve if it were better sourced. Asav (talk) 10:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Article seems to have been turned down several times at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Baldoni. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 14:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. References cited in the article check out. Author in published in multiple languages, including Mandarin, Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese as well as Hungarian and Spanish. His work is timely and cited in management circles. [User:MonicaReview|MonicaReview] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monicareview (talk • contribs) 14:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Thanks to all for comments. Please note I am a leadership development consultant with 10 published books by notable publishers. Yes, I blog for reputable publications, including Harvard Business Review, CBS/BNET, Bloomberg/Businessweek. My publishers view me as an authoritative source. I also consult with leading companies and have been recognized internationally for my work. All of the work cited in this article is substantiated with citations, e.g. books, periodicals, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.218.150 (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete . This is a joke.  The last 2 entries saying keep are from the author of the subject or his representatives.  This article subject is not notable and is obvious self promotion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realitycheck29 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)  — Realitycheck29 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete. I'm having trouble finding any clearly independent, reliable sources.  Most of the hits in my Google search seem to be copying each other or some other promotional source.  Someone needs to find multiple independent reliable sources, or else I'm inclined to label this a self-promotional spam article.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 03:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment I suspect there is some sock/meat puppetry in this AFD. Some of the "Keep" !votes are based on hypothetical future verification of the Harvard Business Review publications. Those sources need to be actually found. causa sui (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * KEEP after deleting the 50% of this article which is purely self promotional and unsourced self-description I think that subject can meet notability, including via. 9 published books. North8000 (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable author: 5 books published by McGrawHill/Amer Mgmt Association--with translations into Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Thai, & Korean; the most widely held, "Great communication secrets of great leaders" in over 1000 WorldCat libraries in English alone. it really puzzles me that the other 5 are essentially self-published, with minor library holdings, but that seems to fit with the mixof notability and puffery in the article. I get a certain satisfaction   editing articles like this down to reason, Mike Wazowski did a first round, I'm about to do a second. The reviews will need to be added.    DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the "self promotional and unsourced self-description" material noted in my "Keep" statement is now much-improved. North8000 (talk) 09:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Changing vote to Keep from Weak Keep after recent cleanup. Asav (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2011 (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.