Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Urban Shaman


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The Urban Shaman

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Originally I tagged as G11, but tag was removed and a little more added. Still seems to have no encyclopaedic value, but I'd rather have some other people look at it. In short WP:ADVERT, WP:NOT &bull; \ / (⁂) 20:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, my name is Sophie and I am a fresh out of college journalist. I am writing this as my first Wikipedia page. Forgive me if it's not in the right format. Could you give me some pointers? I am following James Jacoby's progress as The Urban Shaman as it is a very promising and interesting one to watch. I will be continuing to document his progress and success. This article is designed to be a place where people can get a little bit more information about him. It is not designed as an advert of any kind. I only want to have a place people can refer to as a point of reference. That is what an encyclopaedia is for is it not? His work is extremely interesting, evocative and illuminating. There will be a lot of interest in his work and himself over the coming months and years. I will work on the layout and make it more 'encyclopaedic' over the weekend. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Effortlessflow (talk • contribs) 08:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Sophie, and thanks for you contributions. I nominated the article for deletion for two reasons. Firstly, the article reads like an advertisement. Since Wikipedia is meant to maintain a neutral point of view, advertising goes against Wikipedia's philosophies. The best way to avoid advert-like writing is to follow the tips listed here. However, I have another concern about the subject's notability. Quite simply, in order to meet the criteria for inclusion, the subject should have received some level of coverage in a reliable source, such as The New York Times. While 'The Urban Shamans' work may be promising, I couldn't find any said sources that would validate his notability. It may be best to wait a month or two and see if Jacoby manages to build a larger, more notable profile, and then create the page. If you can find said sources, fantastic, but until then I don't believe this article meets the criterion for inclusion. &bull; \ / (⁂) 10:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  Aitias   // discussion 00:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete A Google search turns up nothing to support notability. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - No reliable third party sources to be had on this one. §FreeRangeFrog 02:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2009 (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.