Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Osenton


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Tom Osenton

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BIO. Osenton does not meet notability guidelines. Very few secondary sources, and those that exist are passing references at best. The article on his theory of "Innovation Saturation" was already deleted per WP:SOAP. Many of the edits to this page were done by the subject himself, also failing WP:COI PianoDan (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Probably notable, but sourcing is inadequite. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 09:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That argument makes no sense. You don't delete an article just because the sourcing is inadequate: you improve the sourcing. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Looked for material on this guy. Wasn't able to find anything. Non-notable. NickCT (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as recently trimmed and edited. The publisher of Sporting News is definitely Notable. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? There are many publishers of magazines that are not themselves notable. Which portion of WP:BIO does he satisfy? PianoDan (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 10:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Just about notable as an author for the three books. Being published by the FT carries a certain weight. Taken together with the Sporting News thing, I am just about persuaded. Mcewan (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Merely writing books does not make you notable if those books have not received adequate coverage in secondary sources. PianoDan (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 10:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. I found a couple of reviews of one of his books but I don't think this is enough to pass WP:AUTHOR. I couldn't find any sources online, and the CRM.com source on its own isn't enough to persuade me that the subject passes WP:BASIC. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 17:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Almost, but does not quite, clear the bar; and almost only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and H-bombs. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:47, 29 January 2013 (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.