Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Shumake


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Robert Shumake

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article fails to address the notability requirements. I get no appropriate matches in Google News apart from press releases and derivatives so it is unlikely that notability will be addressed in the near future and the current references are not suitably independent. His book shows Amazon.com Sales Rank: #3,963,496 which means the book has virtually no sales and appears to be a vanity press publication. Ash (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- Ash (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- Ash (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment the AfD template was recently deleted and the content revised by the creator of the article . I have marked this as a copyvio and added back the AfD template. This SPA appears to have conflict of interest and does not meet the wp:username policy, particularly as the nature of the edits are entirely negative for Shumake.—Ash (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The editor added a cite and the content of this article, which does seem to indicate this figure me be notable and controversial. It's also a bit curious because the editor that added the info had the username of the article subject, but it seems unlikely that Mr. Shumake would be adding derogatory information about himself. I'm not so sure it's a delete, but it would need to be carefully watched and might fall under the BLP 1E guideline. Although I think the controversy looks notable and I've read quite a bit about payoffs fo pension investments, which seems to be the issue concerned. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone may set themselves up with the name of someone else in order to attack that person, this might be what happened here. I suggest if further discussion on this point is needed it may be better on the user or article pages in question.—Ash (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The expanded version was a blatant copyvio. I restored the article to a previous state since G12 speedy deletion is only appropriate when there is no such version to fall back to. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources provided in slightly negative BLP. Miami33139 (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. This reads like a CV. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 02:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: The main thing that I can find is press releases. Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 14:56, 16 January 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.