Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Denning


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Steve Denning

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable, only links to own personal website, seems more like promotion Sheroddy (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak keep He has one book that is held in >1K libraries in Worldcat (ISBN 978-0470548684); all of the others are in the low single digits. So that's a single successful book. The article lists awards, but none of them are of the type that supports notability, with the possible exception of being a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, and nearly everyone there has a WP page. The only book review I found was on the American Express site. He does do the speaking circuit, but that isn't terribly notable. LaMona (talk) 02:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep more or less per LaMona. The nom's assertion that Forbes (forbes.com) is the subject's "personal website" should bring their WP:COMPETENCE into serious question. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above, and the article was nominated for deletion by a new user User:Sheroddy who began nominating articles for deletion within their third edit. While I strongly believe that we should be bold this is maybe a bit too bold. Theredproject (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2015 (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.