Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Buckman (2nd nomination)


 * 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   merge to Magnatune. Without prejudice to a redirect to BookMooch  MBisanz  talk 01:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

John Buckman
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Self-promo that has basically not changed since Mr. Buckman himself wrote it in 2007 ; I fail to find any articles about this guy from after 2007. Article is sourced mostly to press releases, blogs, and corporate sites, with only one SELF-AUTHORED WP:RS. Shii (tock) 02:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 03:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 03:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep while AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP, the article (in its current form) clearly falls under WP:NOTPROMOTIONAL. That being said, the subject does appear to haved received significant coverage per WP:GNG in order to meet notability.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources used here are really borderline -- his projects are notable but he himself may not be. Shii (tock) 03:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not finding any of that "significant coverage". Neither John Buckman nor Magnatune (my mistake, it has an article here with some half-decent references) appears to be notable. Google News finds only press releases and mentions/reports from non-Reliable Sources. None of the references cited at the article qualifies as a Reliable Source.--MelanieN (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Changing my opinion to Redirect/Merge to Magnatune, which has a claim to notability that he does not. The Magnatune article seems better sourced than the alternative, BookMooch. --MelanieN (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe a merge would be a better option, seeing the lack of sources for a proper BLP. Shii (tock) 10:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Should we consider past discussion, the consensus in the last discussion was to keep it, why is it being brought in here again. The case is, notability is not inherited, if he created a company, this doesn't mean that he is notable. If the article is not able to sustain its relevancy I think that the content of this page should me merged into BookMooch. --Eduemoni↑talk↓ </b> 22:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable person, non-notable company, self-promotion inadequately supported by outside sources. --tgeller (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2013 (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.