Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Koch (2nd 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator (DGG). (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Richard Koch
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This poorly-sourced advertisement has been here since 2005. There are two possible courses of action: deleting all the unsourced material and seeing what is left, or just deleting it, and letting someone write a proper article if he is actually notable. The tributes to the books are marketing squibs, not formal reviews.

the combination of clear promotionalism, dubious notability , and unsourced BLP to me indicates the best course would be deletion.  DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * DELETE Trillfendi (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. If you take away the fluff and the unsourced material, you have an unsourced infobox and half a sentence - this is not sufficient for an article. Thryduulf (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I first marked it for AfD, and then realized stubbification is an alternative. So I removed  all the unsourced material last night, 8,000 of the 12,000  bytes. What's left are the books. They are important books, from established publishers, and are some of them in over a thousand libraries Word\ldCat--even for popularized business books of this sort, that is quite substantial. It has been translated into at least 10 languages, and  there are several high quality reviews listed/  DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Per sagacious editing by User:DGG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't even know why this was re-listed after the proposer withdrew their nomination. It's sourced, appears ntoable and thus keepable, if not particularly good as an article. FOARP (talk) 13:04, 16 November 2018 (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.