Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Livesay


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

John Livesay

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is probably too much detail here for a WP:CSD, however, as you sift through the refs there is no quality RS of which he is the main subject. A WP:BEFORE reveals no SIGCOV from any RS where he is the main subject. All references to him are from online blogs/paid-speaker websites (he is a motivitional speaker), which are not suitable RS for Wikipedia. The BLP also has a strong PROMO feel to it. Britishfinance (talk) 09:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 09:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Just cleaned up PROMO language. Was under the impression that business mags. news sources, & other books with SIGCOV (Forbes, KTLA, Yahoo!Finance, Inc. Mag, Dealstorming) were quality RS in addition to verifying pub. of author's own books through Amazon. On the find sources links through google, the RS previously used in the article appear as top results. What else should be done? Ufoshowlloao (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2019 (PST)
 * The Forbes article is part of the "Forbes Paid Program" (e.g. not independent); YahooFinance is not RS; the author having books on Amazon that no decent, never mind high-quality, RS wants to do a full review of, does not add to GNG. The RS in this article are not Wikipedia RS - there is no high-quality or even decent quality RS that has done a pice specifically on him.  All we have are blogs/paid-speaker blogs etc.  We don't even have a single major interview/profile piece on this subject from a full/proper RS, and for a BLP, we really need WP:THREE. A Wikipedia article would be the biggest part of his notability, whereas, it should be the other way around. Britishfinance (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete there is no actual substantial sourcing for this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Are any of these links considered RS?:
 * 1. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/gpsolo/publications/gpsolo_ereport/2019/november-2019/building-practice-3-secrets-winning-legal-beauty-contest
 * 2. https://ktla.com/2019/10/21/author-and-storytelling-expert-john-livesay-on-how-to-go-from-invisible-to-irresistible/
 * 3. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rhettpower/2019/11/21/7-books-that-will-prepare-your-business-for-black-friday-and-cyber-monday-sales-success/#33d9d10179d4
 * 4. https://www.inc.com/matt-haber/founder-sales-strategy-storytelling-john-livesay.html
 * 5. https://www.fastcompany.com/3054298/6-things-you-should-do-when-you-give-your-two-week-notice
 * 6. https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/280827
 * Ufoshowlloao (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2019 (PST)
 * 1. No. This is an article by the BLP subject, so is not independent.
 * 2. No. This is a local news network, not a proper RS for an encyclopedia; also not about him but advice from his book.
 * 3. No. This is not about him but 7 different motivational books; and per comments above is from Forbes "paid program" (i.e. the article is marked with Forbes and/or the author may earn a commission on sales made from links on this page); not something that can be used in an encyclopedia.
 * 4. Not really. Inc is closer to an RS (but not a full RS); however, it is not about him, but just some advice per WP:MILL activity in his business.
 * 5. Not really. The article is from LearnVest (a financial planning software company, and not an RS for a motivational speaker BLP); is not a piece on him, but is him giving advice in a 7-minute read section (e.g. is it a WP:MILL piece for a promotional/motivational speaker)
 * 6. This is not an RS, and even within the website, it is from an author who is CEO and Founder of ReadersLegacy.com, Author, Speaker and Publishing Industry Advocate, and has the caveat of Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own – E.g. not even editorial oversite. Again, not RS for a BLP but just more WP:MILL in the promotional/motivational speaking industry.
 * Sorry, but again, there is no material RS who wants to do a proper piece on this subject as a notable person; therefore, why would Wikipedia? Step back from this and ask yourself, is there even a single material RS who considers John Livesey notable enough to do a piece on him as the subject? I can't find any? Sorry about that. Britishfinance (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Thanks for your time reviewing the article & helping me to understand your reasoning and the proper criteria for RS. Really think this has helped me become a more knowledgable Wiki contributor. Ufohsowlloao (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2019 (PCT)
 * My pleasure, and best of luck. Thank you. Britishfinance (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. He essentially wrote op-eds and puff pieces for various notable publications, but that does not make him automatically notable. The page is worded so poorly that it has a BLP violation, implying he is practicing law without a license. I'm sorry for the new editor, but it appears to be written as an essay, not an article -- too much passive voice, and that contributes to the weird confusion about who is this person. If you do find significant coverage about him, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2019 (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.