Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maxford Nelsen


 * 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. Ben—Salvidrim!  &#9993;  21:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Maxford Nelsen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Despite the author's claim that the WSJ articles are sufficient for notability, this entry fails the basic notability standards:

1. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.

2. Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.

Of the citations in the entry, only two were not written by Nelson himself. And in each of those, he is briefly quoted. There is literally no coverage of Nelson as a notable person.

Writing editorials for your employer and pitching them for publication doesn't make you a subject worthy of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleverhawk (talk • contribs) 16:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Please Keep In response to the suggestion of no notablity, I have added four original works of research/analysis.
 * In response to the suggestion that too few examples of coverage, I have added around 25 additional citations of the work and additional commentaries of related events in Washington and around the nation in an attempt to make more clear the breadth of the notability. These range from academic journals, professional association publications, ideological publications, to newspapers.
 * Few in the nation cover these topics with academic integrity (see the first four original research pieces).CalmGromit (talk) 06:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)CalmGromit (I'm not Maxford, but I do confess to being relatively new to this, so your patience is appreciated)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   20:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   20:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - we are not a web host nor a resume service. The wall of citations in the article are for stories that he's written, not about the subject, thus failing WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. We are a not for profit, which would be put into jeopardy if we provided advertising for profit. Bearian (talk) 23:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * "Stories he's written" claim is simply not true. Twenty five of the items are written about his research and analysis. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. National Federation of Independent Business. New York Times. Inlander. Reason Magazine and many other news and analysis outlets around the country find it relevant enough to report or cite it. I can't even fathom how wikipedia presenting social science research somehow violates nonprofit status. CalmGromit (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- WP:ADVOCACY likely written by someone close to the subject; note the use of the first name here: "Max's work has been published in local newspapers around the country...". Plus, writing articles is hardly a claim to notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:SOAPBOX issues aside, notability guidelines, both th subject-specific and the general ones, ask for significant coverage about the article subject. There is, at best, evidence for significant coverage of labor market issues by the article subject, which is another thing entirely. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:08, 17 June 2017 (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.