Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mort Fertel (3rd nomination)


 * 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. Sources do not prove notability, especially after two precious AfDs generated a consensus of delete. SouthernNights (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Mort Fertel
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I declined G4 as I consider this article to be different enough from the last deleted version. I'm not convinced about the notability, however, and am bringing this for consensus in discussion. Peridon (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Keep: Thank you, first I'll copy my explanation from the talk page here: "I have no idea what this page looked like before, but I do know that when I reviewed the deletion debates from before many of the references I used here were not used, especially as they didn't exist yet. This person has been featured in major newspapers, and written about in major published books as an expert in the field. The author has been written about extensively in the press, far more so that a normal author. Sources 1-3, 6 and 12 exhibit clear depth of coverage, and sources 7 and 8 clearly show that his work is discussed by other major books. Minor amounts of detail have been taken from personal bios, which can be removed if necessary. I do not see at all how this article is one of someone that is "clearly not notable" enough to have a Wikipedia page." None of the sources mention Fertel in passing (save the smaller mentions in the books), and each discuss him as an expert. Sources also come from a range of places--relationship books, popular magazines, newspapers, etc. Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * probably keep I see him referred to with some frequency in other books in the field, though it's hard to say exactly how seriously to take this. This book, at any rate, characterizes him as "a recognized authority". Mangoe (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not too sure how seriously to take that book as a reference - Amazon list it as a Kindle edition, with Alliance Publishing as the publisher. From what I can see, that's a self-publishing outfit. Could be wrong... Look it up. Peridon (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Striking !vote in light of other comments. Mangoe (talk) 11:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The Ronnie Lee book says the same thing as well, and is not a self-published work. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As did the Toronto Sun here. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete Same reason as the previous 2 articles that were deleted via AfD... no reliable references that go into any detail. Jeremy112233 says refs 1-3, 7 and 8 "exhibit clear depth of coverage". Can't see one ref as it is behind a paywall, but the others are book reviews or quotes by Fetel. None go into any depth of coverage about him. The books in refs 5 and 6 are self-published as West Bow publishing offers only self-publishing services. For Mangoe's book, Alliance Publishing Group specialized in "Chamber of Commerce and other lifestyle publications. Our resume includes numerous Chamber titles in Alabama as well as PORTICO Birmingham and other specialty publications, brochures, maps and directories." They will also help you self-publish your book. So, we have a person that has self-published a book, is mentioned in other self-published books, is quoted in some publications. Clearly fails WP:AUTHOR and GNG. Bgwhite (talk) 08:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I've added four news sources to the page to try to help alleviate concerns about Fertel's notability. Among them are an articles that focus entirely on Fertel in the Baltimore Sun, which states that the Mayor of Baltimore announced the last week of October 2004 as "Marriage Fitness Week" due to Fertel's work, and quotes from Fertel in the Toronto Sun, Chicago Tribune, and the Rocky Mountain News. That now makes 8 different major newspapers that have covered Fertel, which I believe is more than enough to pass WP:GNG. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 17:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 04:55, 15 February 2013 (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.