Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Ginsberg (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Ginsberg

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominated in 2009, with a "no consensus" result. Not seeing any better references in the article or online ten years later. Edwardx (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 00:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some more recent references about "wealth creation" seminars where he spoke. Those references, together with the earlier ones from reliable sources, probably add up to notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eastmain Seminars don't dictate notability, but sources like The Daily Telegraph, The Independent and The Toronto Star, do.--Biografer (talk) 00:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability isn’t established but the constant reoccurrence around here of Amazon links to people’s books is starting to get extremely ridiculous. Trillfendi (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:RS are a couple of passing mentions of his seminars, and an article about selling on eBay with again a relatively minor mention. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Between "keep" and "delete" Ok, so my take on this issue is vague. On one hand, the subject is notable because of the above sources, such as The Daily Telegraph, The Independent and The Toronto Star (and I added The Boston Globe, for the verification purpose). On the other hand, who cares about who sells what and how much on eBay. People sell all kinds of stuff, and all if not most are "successful bidders". So, the question remains, if we allow it to happen, will people start writing articles on "bidders" that our readers wont care about?--Biografer (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete see also the article on his one book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Buy,_Sell,_and_Profit_on_eBay.The presence of the two articles indicates the promotional intent. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I am seeing a red link. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 04:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - That link was malformed: How to Buy, Sell, and Profit on eBay. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 20:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a few passing references do not notability make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't have significant coverage in WP:RS. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 04:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is almost WP:A7able, but not quite. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 20:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Between weak delete and somewhat strong delete. No depth of notability in any sources. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.