Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Sharma


 * 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 no consensus. After three relists, consensus cannot be determined. (non-admin closure) &mdash; Music1201  talk  16:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Robin Sharma

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was created by a blocked paid editor without disclosing his paid edits and in violation of wikipedia terms of service. Overtime, the article was turned into a PR piece and added with PR sources which have been eventually removed. After pruning of the article for ineligible content by experienced editors, it is left with no sources, a few self publications and a one line intro. Obviously the article does not meet up the notability criteria and should be deleted. All searches that come up on google are PR pieces, self published books and other promotional material. The few news reports that come up are bare mentions or quotations without indepth coverage of subject. As far as this article will exist, editors and administrators will be wasting their time protecting an ineligible article from promotion attempts. The purpose of this article appears to make the name come up on top on google search to promote the subject which is not an allowed use of wikipedia.
 * Delete I nominate the article for deletion in accordance with wikipedia policies. Drewziii (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable writer and speaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Although there was definitely a problem with PR spin, the reality here is actually that reliable source coverage about him does exist — the issue is that because most of his books were published in the 2000s rather than the 2010s, that coverage will be located in archival media databases like ProQuest or HighBeam or EBSCOhost rather than sitting out in the open on Google News. Indeed, on a ProQuest "Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies" search, I get 190 hits on him dating all the way back to 1995 — and that's before he even published The Monk Who Sold His Ferrari, which was an extremely successful book (actually one of the best-selling titles in the entire history of self-help books) that would get him over WP:AUTHOR all by itself even if it was the only book he'd ever published. I'm not even a fan of the self-help genre, and I've heard of it. So the notability and sourceability are there, and the article just isn't showing them properly. Keep and I'll take a stab at reffing it up when I get a chance. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete because his notability can not be inherited from his books - WP:INHERIT. His books may be notable for which they have (can have) their own Wikipedia articles but for the person to be confirmed notable, his BLP article will need to be separately eligible for Wikipedia. Most sources found on internet are about his books, not him, including much PR sources. Historical references are also to his books or years of PR efforts. This article was from scratch a PR piece. It should be deleted because it is a BLP without reliable sources and far from being properly repaired without COI. Later on if Bearcat or a regular Wikipedia editor finds enough sources to consider it WP:GNG, it can be recreated without WP:COI. --58.65.144.222 (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a rather blatant misreading of WP:NOTINHERITED. I didn't say that he gets a notability freebie just because his books exist; I said that he gets over WP:AUTHOR because the books have made him the subject of enough media coverage to satisfy that notability guideline. And you've got to give people a chance to actually do the work they've promised; I had some time today, and now have added nine citations to this article just out of one media database — and I can guarantee that other coverage will exist in other databases that I may not have personal access to as well. As I already noted, the guy was more prominent in the late 1990s and early 2000s than he is today, so the fact that recent coverage may not be particularly strong on Google does not mean that reliable source coverage of him fails to exist — Wikipedia does not have a requirement that the coverage be current or freely accessible on Google, but merely a requirement that it be cited, which I've now done. Bearcat (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The IP should have realized that you were adding sources to this article, but I think the general concern is correct. Even after your great efforts, the page has a few references that do also depend alot on his books. I do not have a personal opinion on the individual but given the PR efforts that have been made on this article alone and randomly checking many sources online, I am still convinced that most sources are PR which can not be added to his article on wikipedia. If this article is kept, writing his biography factually and keeping PR in check is the right thing to do but as of yet I agree with the IP and John Pack Lambert and I am still inclined towards delete. Drewziii (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 03:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. As Bearcat argues above, this person seems to have had a significant impact in his particular area of work; witness his works here (not the pieces about optics, just the "leadership" stuff); and also the terms used to describe him in these   . Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - I presume Bearcat has been following through with his promise to improve the article, because I see cited reliable references now. So, obviously keep. Fieari (talk) 06:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Bearcat's argument is persuasive.  Nha Trang  Allons! 18:09, 20 July 2016 (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.