Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve G. Jones


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 05:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Steve G. Jones

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The subject is a hypnotherapist/hypnotist. The initial writing had to be trimmed down a lot to remove excess promotional wording and still relies heavily on self-claims and self-publication.

The article was originally written for pay. Credit to the author who did completely right and was open about it. Articles are not judged by their origins so this is not by itself a concern, but having done some cleanup, I find I still want a second opinion on notability.


 * 1) The books don't seem to provide much basis for notability (and appear to be largely self published).
 * 2) Having notable clients wouldn't make a professional notable - 1/ notability is not inherited, 2/ if it was enough to make a difference the way we would know would be due to third party coverage of the subject due to the client list, not just the client list itself, and 3/ many therapists have a handful of "known" clients, a number of notable clients does not make the therapist notable.
 * 3)  The media mentions and appearances might indicate notability but might not, the coverage appears to be slim but genuine. Claims of recognition could be genuine or promotion. There has been enough of a promotional approach in this article (mostly removed now) to suggest it needs critical scrutiny whether the media appearances show this to be a person who has "gained enduring notability" (WP:NOT), or there are "non-trivial works of their own that focus upon [the subject]" (WP:N). See also WP:N.
 * 4) Much of the web presence appears to be the result of heavy self-promotion.

The community is asked for a consensus whether this is this a genuinely notable subject or not, so that it can go forward as a legitimate article if kept, and the author's time saved (with a clear reason for the decision) if not kept.

FT2 (Talk 13:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - it's not the worst I've seen, but I would like to see some better sourcing and verification. Interviews and the like are OK for BLPs, but they should be in better periodicals or news shows, that is, those that have journalistic standards and editorial control.  Appearing in a local paper or on a single TV show does not make one notable.  This is another marginal case, but one that appears to be the side of non-notability. I'd change my mind if it were improved. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay everyone, I respect your input. My schedule demands right now do not warrant time for me to make an improvement here. Will you please refrain from permanent deletion until I have and opportunity to review all comments and move forward from there? Thank you! Cre8tivedge 18:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cre8tivedge (talk • contribs)
 * Discussions like this may or may not result in deletion - it's a completely open process and probably as many articles are kept as not. The discussion is pretty autonomous and routine. If kept it's easy. If deleted, a copy could easily be placed in your user space to work on at leisure, and you'll have a very good idea what hurdles others perceived when you return to it. (And can either agree with them or try to ascertain for yourself whether better evidence would refute them). FT2 (Talk 20:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * 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.