Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Hammond (author/speaker)


 * 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 per WP:SNOW. PeterSymonds (talk)  15:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Scott Hammond (author/speaker)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Has been speedily deleted twice. I am offering the author an AfD to assure them that the gerenral view is that this guy is not notable and that his article is essentially an advert for him and his book. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per NOTADVERTISING. Article seems to be promotional rather than encyclopedic. siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 12:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I have stubbed the article to remove the advertising nonsense, but there is no assertion of notability even with the spam. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable figure. --Killerofcruft (talk) 13:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete agreed, non-notable and advertising. docboat (talk) 13:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Article has been rewritten in encyclopedic format. --Jkorbes (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There is evidence that the subject is notable subject is notable. --82.158.118.243 (talk) 09:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC) — 82.158.118.243 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Really? what is it? Be specific - what in particular demonstrates this notability? --Killerofcruft (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Article is encyclopedic and the subject is notable. --75.109.249.100 (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Biographicial - Sharvok - McK_CA — 75.109.249.100 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Firstly, this next part is not intended as my argument, just something I wanted to say.
 * I am actually quite offended by everyone. I mean, this is my first time using wikipedia in terms of authoring an article, and I really thought I was contributing something that would be useful to others. I was certain everyone would be a lot more kind than they turned out to be. After all, calling what I wrote "promotional" is alright, but calling it "advertising nonsense" and "spam" is completely rude and unprofessional. It's really entirely not within anyone's right to decide who is or isn't notable, but for an encyclopedia I understand you must pick and choose. But one of the benefits of Wikipedia is that it is supposed to contain a practically limitless array of knowledge available, even if the person is not well known by all of America but rather by those in the particular field of study. That said, if I didn't feel this was important I wouldn't put up with the verbal abuse.


 * Now, as for the proof of notability...
 * Scott Hammond has an exceptional amount of respect from the speaking community. He has developed parenting strategies from his own experiences as a father. Possibly more importantly he has shared his parenting tips with other fathers who have children with mental disabilities. I know a family in my town that has one child without special needs and the other two with. Since listening to Scott I sent them a link to his website. Their mother has done all the research but she became teary when she read his article about his son, realizing that she wasn't alone in her hardships with these two boys. She then went on to show it to her husband, who honestly seemed to really take a good attitude out of it. I realize that not every person is "notable" enough for an article, but the ability to effect the lives of those with special needs children, help others become better parents, and share his struggle so that others may benefit... to me, that's notable. Please read his article "Growing Up Gabriel" below then maybe you'll see why I chose to look him up and eventually write this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EloraC88 (talk • contribs) (as if we had not guessed.)


 * I've afraid you haven't presented a single reason why this person is notable. I'm afraid personal testimony of the sort you have just posted is worthless on wikipedia and will play no part in this discussion & decision making process. You need reliable 3rd party sources - not hard luck stories. --Killerofcruft (talk) 00:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It wasn't intended as a hard-luck story. It was intended to explain two things. One is that the only measure of an author besides popularity (if that is even a good measure) is in his ability to evoke emotion and create pieces that are meaningful and affect people in a powerful way. Secondly, he is one of very few speakers today who deal with the parenting of special needs children. In addition, he created a system called "Momentum Creation" to which he has exclusive rights. This system has met fantastic reviews. See quote below-

“ … quite simply is empowering… He combines a strong sense of values, beliefs, passion, and practical steps into an inspiring presentation that gives people hope – and direction…” Scott “Q” Marcus, THINspirational Speaker Past president, National Speaker Association, Northern California


 * --EloraC88 (talk) 04:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)EloraC88


 * That is why we put the warning "&hellip; edited mercilessly &hellip;" on the edit page. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Rewrote the article in encyclopedic format; it should be more acceptable now. --Jkorbes (talk) 02:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The prose is better but it still fails as a wikipedia article - on the evidence presented there, this guy is just not notable. --Killerofcruft (talk) 08:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. We are not here to evaluate this author as an author, public speaker, father, good person, or potential ruler of India. We are here to evaluate his quality as a possible article subject. Given the utter lack of reliable sources discussing him or his work, he is not an appropriate article subject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I've profiled Scott on my blog and podcast as part of a continuing series on notable speakers in Northern California who are associated with the National Speakers Association Scott is a graduate of the training program of this association. --IanGriffin (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC) — IanGriffin (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I'm afraid, that interesting as your blog is, it's not considered notable by our standards of reliable sources. sorry about that. --Killerofcruft (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * National Speakers Association is a blatant copyvio. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is well written, follows the guidelines for notable, and show just who the real 'heroes' are in our society:dads who desire to excel in raising loving, responsible citizens. People need all the information and help they can get and publications such as this one will have a large reading audience. These type of publications help us to engage the culture in a positive and transformative way.  The biography is interesting and adds credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.47.105 (talk • contribs)  — 75.111.47.105 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * can you explain how it follows those guidelines? please be specific in your answers, giving details of the publications that you think demonstrate this. --Killerofcruft (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Article follows guidelines; cites sources for notability; no problems here. --Kellytherascal (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)— Kellytherascal (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. new account - only edit is here. --Killerofcruft (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes my account is new, I created it to leave a note? --Kellytherascal (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is very straightforward and simple. Writing a book is notable enough.  I haven't written one.  If there's no interest then the page won't get many hits.  Why not give it a chance and see what happens for a few months? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.194.71.34 (talk • contribs)  — 64.194.71.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Article is encyclopedic and the subject is notable. --75.111.46.126 (talk) 05:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Hammond is renown in both the Special Needs Community (president of the local National Down Syndrome Society Chapter called Buds of the Redwoods)and is a conference speaker with Supported Life Institute and is known in the Speaking/Toastmasters Community in Northern California. — 75.111.46.126 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * In an attempt to stem the SPAs (and I find it curious that EloraC88 has not actually registered a Keep vote yet) I have userfied the page so that EloraC88 can work on the article. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong DELETE. This person fails WP:BIO.  And, since other editors here have strong suspicions of WP:SOCK and/or WP:MEAT in this AfD, the closing admin should take that into consideration and very possibly discount all or most of the keep votes here. Qworty (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is encyclopedic and the subject is notable. This article is wonderful and ought to be kept active and alive.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.63.153 (talk • contribs)  — 75.111.63.153 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. No reliable sources showing notability -- Neil N   talk  ♦  contribs  15:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm sure he's a nice guy and everything, but not at all notable. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2008 (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.