Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Lesser


 * 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. Tone 22:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Marc Lesser

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

One spammy interview indicating that Lesser has a PR person is the "best" coverage there; no other independent coverage beyond a mention; fails WP:GNG Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * More references to trusted sources are coming; some material was deleted without leaving a history trail which makes improvement more difficult


 * Material has been added and marked as quoted as needed, including references to publications by Forbes, Fast Company, NYT - please review and let me know of any changes you would suggest to improve the entry. Thx Florian Brody (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Fast Company and NYT are mere mentions, significant coverage is required - see WP:SIGCOV. Forbes reference is unreliable, as it is from a contributor - see Identifying_reliable_sources/Perennial_sources Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * As a note, Fbrody has said they have a personal relationship with Marc Lesser Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, personal relationship or not, subject is notable, considering the coverage in news sources, including New York Times and Forbes. Now that Tan has stepped down, Lesser is one of the remaining main leaders.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you explain how the coverage is significant per WP:GNG? Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Coverage is more than just mention here, here, here, here and here. Criterion is met: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 15:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The fast company source is the best of the lot, but still doesn't offer significant independant coverage, with the material almost entirely being a quote from him or a paraphrased quote from him. The remaining sources offer a sentence of coverage, largely of quote (hardly significant coverage) or are unreliable forbes contributor Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you are reaching. There is more than what I have posted here, and the general overview is that the subject is notable enough for an article. Whenever the obviously notable Search Inside Yourself Leadership Institute is mentioned, Lesser is mentioned as well. I wonder where you are basing the conclusion on that a paraphrased opinion in a news article is not independent coverage.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 20:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Then merge/redirect to Search Inside Yourself Leadership Institute. Independant is, by definition, means not produced by the subject of the article. Paraphrased opinion is produced, essentially, by the subject; that a journalist paraphrased it doesn't make it from someone else. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Main thing is - his opinions aren't coverage about him Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Your argument rests on a misunderstanding of independent. WP:N states "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it.. Whether a person is just mentioned, paraphrased or quoted, is not related to this criterion, except the other way around: a person paraphrased or quoted is more likely to be notable than if just mentioned in passing. The source should have independent interests, whether the source quotes is irrelevant. If being quoted makes a subject less notable, than the American president would not be notable, because he is quoted all the time. I stick with keep, don't merge.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 23:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete He seems to be successful, but that's not a notability criterion. He can't inherit notability from his various teachers and I don't see significant independent coverage from multiple independent reliable sources to support the claim that he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 18:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. The refs in the article aren't independent of the subject nor do they sufficiently indicate notability, the refs noted in this afd are about the mooted merge target which will likely get deleted too. Szzuk (talk) 19:14, 20 October 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.