Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Mauldin


 * 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. --Core desat  20:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

John Mauldin

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article is actually a self advertisement by an entity claiming to be an investment advising business whose principal is "John Mauldin". The text is copied from the biography page at "John Mauldin's" Web site. This company has been spamming me for a month now. It spams me from multiple email addresses: noreply@iipub.com, noreply@email.investorawareness.org, newsletters@investorsinsight.com, newsletters@inverstorawareness.org, and others. My stupid email provider can't seem to block these emails even though I've marked them as spam and the company uses the same four or five addresses. I never contacted any of "John Mauldin's" Websites (self named Website and Investor's Insight Publications), I never contacted any investment advisers. The article bears category tags like "biography of American writers", "financial writers". Hurmata 18:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This nomination was incomplete. Listed now. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. There is nothing in the nom's statement that, after some brief investigation, can be substantiated, with the exception of the categories.  No ties to investorawareness in the article or the page (or to iipub.com).  If this is an AFJ, it's not a very good one. --Dennisthe2 23:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Investigation was brief indeed. www.investorsinsight.com redirects to www.iipub.com. In the I.I. Publications's navigation bar, John Mauldin is listed under IIP Authors. Changing the subject, you say "AFJ" and I don't know what AFJ means. I'm finding Wikipedia to be too clubby. It's hard to find my way through the Commons and the policies and procedures, and hard to find out the meaning of acronyms. Hurmata 00:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Super Powerful Delete. Unless improvement of reference source origins is occurring, this page is unacceptable. Person may create personal website of lies and propaganda, should not be used as reliable source, perhaps if sentences preface "person claiming to be name John Maudlin alleges...." it is OK but not in this Wikipedia Project.Wen Hsing 06:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete based on the fact that there appears to be a dearth of sources out there on the man (although I'm willing to be proven wrong here). The reasons given by the nominator are almost entirely invalid (aside from the advertising claims), since removing an article from Wikipedia will not stop spammers from spamming. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. The reasons given by the nominator are invalid. But one should provide references to the books by John Mauldin.Biophys 17:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Super Powerful Delete. As the nominator, I must say I am surprised that I haven't found a statement in the Wikipedia rules that commercial promotions are forbidden or at least discouraged. I see now that I should have invoked "not notable". Nevertheless, nobody is going to flatly say that commercial promotion or self promotion *are* OK for Wikipedia articles, am I right? Hurmata 23:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As nominator, you're automatically assumed to be advocating deletion, so there's no need to preface your remarks with "Delete". In terms of commercial promotions et al, if it's unequivocally an ad then it's actually a Speedy Deletion criterion. In this particular case, however, it's not unequivocally an ad - although it's certainly more laudatory of the subject than the available references would suggest. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable, poorly sourced.Aleksi Peltola 01:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete in its present form, and unless an objective and unbiased source can be found to verify notability outside the investment community (and, possibly, the World Club of Spammers and 419-ers), continue deleting it for as long as it keeps being reposted. -- Simon Cursitor
 * Delete - per Simoncursitor, to the letter. Checking the web is giving little in the way of stuff that might satisfy WP:ATT and WP:N. Seemingly just another businessman with half-decent PR. Moreschi Request a recording? 14:15, 6 April 2007 (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.