Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Strelecky


 * 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) &#x222F; WBG converse 13:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

John Strelecky

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced article with WP:FLOWERY language. &raquo; Shadowowl  &#124;  talk  09:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - has been a promotion piece for seven years, but was cut down to a neutral stub earlier this year. A couple of different accounts have popped up to restore the advertising language (quite frankly, the article could be speedily deleted as an advert) but when sifting through the revisions and looking for independent sources, I can't find anything pointing towards notability. In a way this is a good illustration of why people shouldn't try to use Wikipedia to promote themselves - this person has had their promotional bio on Wikipedia for several years, but there is still no actual significant coverage of them in any independent sources. With all the (unspecified) claims of best-seller status (local, regional, a specific bookshop, a newspaper, a country version of amazon.com...? no way of telling) I would have expected quite a bit of independent coverage, but I find only one item, this piece from Hamburger Abendblatt. One such piece is not sufficient - and the fact that there is only one makes me suspect that this is based on a press release, but my German is not good enough to tell churnalism from journalistic writing. The host of SPAs restoring the promo piece is another thing, there is definitely a COI/probable UPE issue here. --bonadea contributions talk 10:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Change that to a weak keep based on the dw.com reference. I agree with power-enwiki below that it is very peculiar indeed that there are not more sources - his books are self-published but even so a national bestseller would normally have some more independent coverage. "Bestseller" is a tricky concept which marketers like to apply to books that sell better than other books in one individual bookshop, for instance, but the dw.com source does seem to confirm that it is a bona fide national bestseller. --bonadea contributions talk 09:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Not finding any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 10:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 13:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Apparently he had the third best-selling book of Germany in 2017 (and top 10 since 2015 with the best-selling paperback non-fiction of 2015 ), and received significant coverage in German sources- . Should qualify under WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I am unable to confirm that foreign language sources discuss him as the main subject. I will WP:AGF. Ping me if the opposite is determined.=TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as a top selling author in Germany meets NAUTHOR. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 18:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep this is very bizarre. The article is a disaster, but being the author of a multi-year best-selling book in Germany meets WP:NAUTHOR#4, and the DW reference is reliable for that.  I don't see quite the coverage I'd expect for that; possibly I'm not using the right search terms to find German references. power~enwiki ( π ,  ν ) 04:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT. There may be a notable topic here somewhere (of which I'm not convinced) but this article ain't it. No sources except for the subject's own book, etc. Just promo 'cruft at this point and no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:45, 24 June 2018 (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.