Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Pavlina (4th nomination)


 * 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. A discussion held a few months down the road, with the sources presented here incorporated into the article, might help to lead to a consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Steve Pavlina
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

While I think Steve Pavlina was questionably notable even in 2008 to 2010 when this was published, it should be fairly clear today that he does not meet notability standards as an author or speaker, or even blogger, per wp:Bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danihan (talk • contribs) 20:01, October 6, 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Discussion page was created without the afd2 template and not transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have not yet formed an opinion of my own at this time.   If you wish to nominate other articles for deletion in the future, please take care to more fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO.  Thank you.  --Finngall talk  21:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 21:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 21:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. One of the NYT articles merely quotes his own site to describe him ("whose Web site (stevepavlina.com) describes him as a 'personal development expert'”); that indicates to me that the author didn't even care enough to look any further.  Many of the other RS seem to be solely about his thoughts on sleep. I think these "self-help" BLPs are always hard, as so many seem to exist mostly for quasi-promotional purposes, but I'm willing to change "vote"... Caro7200 (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Notability is not temporary. If they were notable in 2008 to 2010, they are still notable. Consensus is towards delete currently, but given the high number of past discussions, it would benefit from further discussion.
 * Delete per nom. Pavlina was more notable over a decade ago but no so much today. Ten pages of a Google search turned up no reliable third-party coverage at all, while any existing notable sources in the article contain brief mentions of his sleep habits (The Guardian refers to him as a "blogger"). Article overall is mostly puff material with nearly half its citations from his own website, and when your biggest notable celebrity influence is Lindsay Lohan...yeah. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  14:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 01:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: final relist, mostly to discuss sources presented in the last !vote
 * Comment Even in 2008-2010 Pavlina did not meet notability standards, as far as I can tell. Reviewing the other deletion discussions, the main reason the page was previously kept was because his blog had a high Alexa rating at one point. There is almost zero third-party coverage or news coverage, none that I can find that goes beyond a passing reference. Danihan (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - I found discussions of his blog on newspapers.com: York Daily Record (York, Pennsylvania)13 Nov 2006, Page 9; Edmonton Journal (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada)30 Aug 2007, Page 1; Lansing State Journal (Lansing, Michigan)27 Nov 2011, Page 34; Fond Du Lac Commonwealth Reporter (Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin)23 Nov 2011, Page 19; and The Times (Shreveport, Louisiana)11 Jan 2008, Page 9.  These are more than passing references/casual mentions.  None of them are a "hey, that's really great in-depth coverage!" either, hence the "weak" keep.  However, I note the geographic disparity and the relative breadth of time.  I believe he was notable in 2010, and notability is not temporary.  78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 14:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 17:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:NOTTEMP applies. If the subject of an article was "unquestionably notable" 10-12 years ago then they are notable. 20:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd say these newspaper references show that he was not notable even in 2008-2010. Here are the actual articles mentioned, so anyone who wants can take a look easily.  Pavlina did not meet notability standards in the past according to these -- these articles seem to  be "passing references," especially in two of three mentions. He is not the central topic of any of the articles and is merely quoted for a sentence or two at most as a blogger. Nothing leads to "unquestionable notability," these do not seem to be Significant Coverage per WP:SIGCOV but rather "Trivial mentions". Danihan (talk) 04:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete it seems as though everything that was suppose to make him notable in the other AfDs ended up being just brief mentions. So, there appears to be a lack of in-depth coverage out there on him. Maybe the newspaper mentions that were found by 78.26 are enough, but I'm not 100% convinced that they are. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.