Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neal Boulton


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Neal Boulton

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP, actually an evident WP:AUTOBIO if you compare the creator's username to the article's "current work" section, of a magazine publisher and film producer. There are legitimate claims of notability being made here, but the problem is that they aren't being sourced properly. Almost everything here is resting on primary sources, rather than reliable source coverage in which he's the subject — for instance, his editorship of Genre cites a mere repetition of the name Genre as the "source" for itself, rather than any news article in some other publication writing about his editorship of Genre; a purported appearance on Anderson Cooper 360 is sourced only to a simple repetition of the name Anderson Cooper 360 rather than to any independent media coverage of his appearance on that program; purported appearances on "several (unnamed) CBS programs" is sourced only to a repetition of the name CBS rather than any non-affiliated media coverage of those appearances; and on, and so forth. The creator appears to deeply misunderstand what "sourcing" means on Wikipedia; the article was previously tagged for blpprod for lacking any actual sourcing, but the creator removed that tag with the claim that the article was well-sourced. But it isn't, because things can't just be sourced to themselves. And the creator also needs to familiarize himself with our conflict of interest rules, in particular the parts that militate against starting an article about yourself. Better sourcing might certainly exist in subscription news databases that I don't have access to, but Google News offers up almost exclusively glancing namechecks and blogs rather than substantive coverage in real media. I'm certainly willing to withdraw this nomination if somebody can repair it with proper reliable source coverage beyond anything I've been able to locate, but in this state it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  08:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as all my searches noticeably found links but perhaps not enough for a notable article yet. SwisterTwister   talk  08:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: Creator has modified the sourcing in an apparent attempt to address the concerns raised here, but they didn't actually succeed in doing so — instead of thing-reffed-to-repeat-of-thing, there are now references which include partial detail, but still elide the actual title and exact date of the source content. "Johnson The New York Post 2007, p6", for just one example of the referencing format that now prevails here, is still not an adequate reference — it does not help narrow down which specific article, on which specific date, is being cited, because The New York Post is a daily newspaper which published 365 different "page sixes" in 2007. And the creator also now appears to have WP:SPA puppets making "nominations not to delete" on the article's talk page, to boot — but that's not a thing, and transparent SPA puppetry isn't a respected or effective tactic either. Bearcat (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Second update: creator responded to this comment by adding the dates to the references, while still eliding the article titles. I have to give him some credit for trying this hard, but there's still more to be done and the WP:COI is still an issue. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07  ( T ) 03:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Here's NYTimes article. Basically, no, not notable. Plays up all of his scandals (true? who knows?) But scandals aren't on WP's notability list, and I don't find anything else that he has done that would confirm notability. LaMona (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2015 (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.