Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Wilke (2nd 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

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

I nominated this article for deletion in 2014 in the course of WP:New Pages Patrol. The outcome was a non-admin closure of "no consensus". Looking back over this, the result seems very problematic. The only keep !voter was @Brookspowell629 who, more likely than not, had conflicts of interest when creating and editing articles in 2014 related to this article. Look at their history and judge for yourself. Brookspowell629 has since become inactive. The non-admin closure also looks problematic because the consensus of the discussion, setting aside Brookspowell629's !vote, appears to be delete. More substantively, the article's subject and its sources still show no sign of meeting the notability standards. Fiachra10003 (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  16:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  16:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete., possibly speedy delete as promotional. Self-published author. Nosignificant library holdings ofany of his books.  DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 17:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * delete this page is entirely promotional and badly sourced, as most promotional pages are. Would need to be completely rewritten.  A deletion discussion argument can be the same as a speedy one, and this should have been speedied per WP:G11 - it would need to be fundamentally rewritten to make this a WP article and not an ad. Jytdog (talk) 05:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG, as "sources" therein are from the author himself. Promotional piece. sixty nine   • speak up •  05:42, 21 September 2017 (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.