Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verne Harnish (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 no consensus. No prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Verne Harnish
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG as WP:AUTHOR or businessman. successfully nominated for deletion four years ago, and it was recreated within days. —МандичкаYO 😜 23:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Preliminary: this is considerably expanded over the previously-deleted article and needs to be judged in its own right.   DGG ( talk ) 15:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:GNG. The article and sources has improved since its first creation. The consensus in the last AfD isn't very clear. Accesscrawl (talk) 09:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutral after observing arguments. Accesscrawl (talk) 09:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * delete Reluctant keep reluctant because I am biased against keeping articles promoting professional self-promoters on Wikipedia, and - a more policy-based argument - because so many of the sources on the page are Harnish writing about Harnish.  Nevertheless, there are articles like Success a matter of habit  [], The Australian, 13 February 2007, a detailed profile from which a BLP can be sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Withdraw.  I am no longer certain that sources I took to be independent of the subject actually are, and I do have concerns about a page that is instantly resurrected after being deleted as WP:PROMO. Changing iVote to "d".E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. self-promotion, which is a reason to delete regardless of notability DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure it's self promotion, he just writes a lot of articles, going back 20+ years, and as you point out it's considerably expanded from the previously deleted article. Tekkamakii (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Took out any fluff/selfpromotion - should still meet GNG, between WP:Author and EO, but, yeesh, he writes a lot of articles. Didn't see the resurrection E.M.Gregory saw; doesn't look to have been deleted in the past?  Going to review the sources you flagged next. Tekkamakii (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC) — Tekkamakii (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You have to provide best sources you have when notability is disputed by other editors. Accesscrawl (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Updating a few now. Tekkamakii (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep That person is notable by all means while the page itself was poorly written . The article was written primarily to promote the subject itself, rather than being informative. I have taken out almost all the fluff, reduced promotional tone, removed references published by the subject himself or unreliable ones. Now that all the references in the current version truly indicate the subject's notability, I'd argue the nominator and editors to take a second look. Harnish, for example, was covered significantly by Forbes, CNN Money , HuffPost , The Sydney Morning Herald , Fast Company , Business Insider. Sillva1 (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep (disclaimer: article creator), per Sillva1 and their work on the article. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep I am struggling to see anything that leads me to believe the article's creator has a close connection with the subject. The article seems to have been heavily edited for its tone and I would really say it is neutral and doesn't have any agrandising peacock statements. If I may I would like to go over all the references just to double check there is nothing hyper-promotional in there, there certainly shouldn't be any links to sales pages on amazon, especially when a quick search on highbeam reveals more than enough coverage from reputable sources.Cr@Z Kit-Kat Lovert@lk 11:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep the person seems notable if we see only references.--Mykanah (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * — Mykanah (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . K.e.coffman (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep It's clear from the references that this person passes WP:GNG there is no clear argument for deletion here.Olaf Sergi Vlademere (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * — Olaf Sergi Vlademere (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . K.e.coffman (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; significant RS coverage not found. Sources in the article are passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Just self-promotion for a nn individual. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * what do you think about the sources provided by Sillva1? w umbolo   ^^^  10:23, 26 August 2018 (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.