Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noel Tichy


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure)  Rcsprinter123    (notify)  09:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Noel Tichy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

a non notable article. Arifjwadder (talk) 12:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * a revenge nomination for which the nominator should be trouted. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * even if you thought previously that the article failed GNG (and you failed to do WP:BEFORE to do a simple google search), the article now contains multiple book reviews from the NYT and other national publications and easily demonstrates WP:AUTHOR. Please withdraw your nomination. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 24.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 12:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep as this easily seems acceptable. Pinging past user for comment.  SwisterTwister   talk  05:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral (with a POV opinion of delete). If a management guru wants a self-promotional article, then they should have a better one written that makes a better case. As it stands, I find it unconvincing. I'm not already convinced that this is a delete either, but I sure wouldn't miss it if it went. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. This position is based on what I see in the article, but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise.  If this person's notability derives from being a "management guru", can someone point me to other articles for which the subject's chief 'claim to fame' is management guru-ism?  And if notability derives from being an author, can anybody tell me how an author can be notable without having written any books that are notable?  Just to be clear -- I'm not being sarcastic here.  I am genuinely willing to consider any answers to these questions.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * the claim is for notability under WP:AUTHOR with several NYT reviews and other national publication reviews.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. When you cite to WP:AUTHOR, I presume you are citing either to criterion (3) (has created "significant or well-known work") or criterion 4(c) (has created work that "has won significant critical attention").  Either way, I don't see either of those criteria being met here.  It is certainly true that his work has been reviewed in major newspapers, etc.  But the business sections of newspapers routinely review recently-issued business books, just like their "weekend" sections routinely review recently-released films.  Just like music-related magazines routinely review recently-released albums.  Just like science-fiction magazines routinely review recently-issued science-fiction books.  Just like ... I suppose I could go on and on with examples.  My point here is that such routine coverage does not bestow any measure of significance on either the book or the author.  And I don't see any significance being bestowed by anything else in the article.  Thanks again for your response, but my position remains "delete".  NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You must be surely be disappointed in a lot of AFDs, then, where even local paper reviews are considered sufficient coverage for NOTABLE! closures.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: meets WP:NAUTHOR. Was any due diligence performed here? -- Sam Sailor Talk! 00:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - searches turned up enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR.  Onel 5969  TT me 03:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong delete cannot see any merit for a standalone article. There are thousands of writers in the world and Wikipedia cannot have article on each of them. Thanks.EyThink (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC) sock puppet of the sock master who made this revenge nomination --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This is a revenge nomination by Arifjwadder, whose many forks on non-notable subtopics related to Aligarh Muslim University have been merged-redirectd by TRPoD. EyThink's "strong delete" vote should be counted similarly as these both editors have been dedicatedly only forking content and creating non-notable articles since few weeks. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: It seems You and TRPoD both are working handy against Aligarh Muslim University. It has to be inquired why you both work in the same article. Both of you dedicate a lot of time in Aligarh Muslim University. Any COI.. ??? Arifjwadder (talk) 06:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, pro Wikipedia. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * your and TRPoD behavior are almost same!!!! Arifjwadder (talk) 07:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep as passing NAUTHOR for multiple reviewed publications. Also, co-pioneer of Multidisciplinary Action Projects which is described as "pioneering experiential programs in business education"ref. §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NAUTHOR needs rather more than "multiple reviewed publications". Even "multiple peer-reviewed publications" isn't enough to cut it for academics. Certainly for trade press books it is very easy to generate a published review, this only conveys notability if the review, reviewer or location it's published in also carry some weight. A single review in the TLS would swing it, any number of paid-fors in the back columns of Paperclips Monthly won't. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: User:Arifjwadder, User:EyThink have been indef blocked for socking. See Sockpuppet investigations/Arifjwadder/Archive. §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep; nom is obviously being disruptive. This author has been cited almost 12500 times. He deserves major trouting! FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  22:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:GNG, article sources also reflects this. ps. I am open to being trouted (or minnowed)Coolabahapple (talk) 14:40, 9 October 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.