Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard W. Paul


 * 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. Courcelles 22:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Richard W. Paul

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article presents itself as a biographical article, but the majority of the content is actually a promotion of the individual's philosophy. The only real sourcing is in the form of a bibliography of the subject's worst, which, at best, is hardly an independent source. The tone is essentially promotional, although I didn't think it was quite blatant enough to qualify for speedy deletion. --Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not sure on this one. Is there any reason to think this should be merged to either Center for Critical Thinking or Foundation for Critical Thinking which were created today, also? Location (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete entirely self-sourced. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  03:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete self-sourced and bordering on an advertisement. Sailsbystars (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Irretrievable POV, COI issues. Subject is notable enough to have a biography here, but I see little to nothing of value in the current article. Essentially, Speedy G11. Ray  Talk 04:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Ray. The subject might actually be notable, but the text of the article appears to be unsalvageable. Nsk92 (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete for lots of reasons, among them: no credible demonstration of notability, unsourced, promotion/POV, most of the article is actually about the neologism "Paulian Thinking", spa-created (probably COI), etc. This is very likely just a vanity page. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2010 (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.