Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Caplan


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Tom Caplan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a psychotherapist, actually more of a chimera split halfway between a primary-sourced repost of his résumé (complete with a directory, larded with WP:ELNO-violating offlinks, of every individual article he ever wrote for an academic journal or a newspaper) and a completely unsourced WP:COATRACK essay about his self-designed counselling model. An academic isn't automatically entitled to have or keep a Wikipedia article just because he exists — it takes reliable source coverage, supporting a claim of notability that would satisfy WP:NACADEMICS, for him to earn inclusion here. There's also a likely WP:COI, as the single most frequent editor of the article since its creation has been User:Needs-abc. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk   18:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07  ( T ) 22:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm seeing some trivial coverage in newspaper articles but nothing about him, just some quotes by him on different topics. Nothing meets notability requirements. The self-promotion on the page definitely does not help. mikeman67 (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Not notable and a borderline case of advertising. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  04:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete-searches did not turn up anything to show notability.  Onel 5969  TT me 01:33, 20 October 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.