Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Hodges


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 22:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Paul Hodges

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems to be a borderline notable analyst of some sort. I don't think it really falls under speedy but it reads as a giant piece of self-promotion right now which pushes me toward deletion unless it is completely reworked with some 3rd part sources and not just links to his own work. Sasquatch t&#0124;c 21:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete -- self promotion by a business adviser. I note a great dearth of initernal WP links to anything else that might be notable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:22, 8 April 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) 01:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per Special:Contributions/JustinPugsley, it appears to be a promotional piece created by an account devoted solely to making a resume. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I checked two obvious places - Who's Who and Debrett's People of Today, and he's in neither. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Just as we do not use being in Debrett or Who's who as a criterion for inclusion, it shouldn't be used as a criterion for exclusion either. Their practices are not the same as ours'.  DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, not being in one of these doesn't mean one is not notable. But inclusion definitely indicates notability.  So I looked, but couldn't find. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not think we have ever used inclusion in any Who's who compendium as a RS for notability; I do agree that the UK one is not as unreliable in this respect that the US publications with these titles. I cannot remember any discussion of Debrett's as a RS for notablity. Possibly this discussion should be continued at WP:RSN.    DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a promotional essay for his ideas. Neither they nor he are notable. The book referred to a a private published ebook (available free, btw, which in this case does not indicate the laudable desire to publish open access but the commercial desire to make the general ideas available to promote the paid services; it is not even in WorldCat. There's nothing wrong with doing this, but no reason why we should be a part of it.   DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 11 April 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.