Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Strickel

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Strickel

[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)

Per WP:BIO, subjects should have significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. After a thorough search, I have not found such sources. ~~David Strickel is a self-proclaimed "medium" who claims to be in touch with a supernatural force called "Tya" for "trust your abundance."~~

description of all available sources, which are not independent, not reliable, and almost entirely self-published.

The references currently cited in the article include: a paid advertisement in an online javascript-based spiritualist magazine [1], a radio interview from a cruise sponsored by that magazine that I don't think actually occurred [2], and links to his podcast episodes from this same magazine and his own podcast [3] [4] [5] and book by the same name [6].

All of these are WP:PRIMARY and not independent of the subject, because he paid for them. The only possibly secondary sources available are an interview from SpiritualBiz magazine [7] (which bills itself as "A magazine for Spiritual Entrepreneurs"), this podcast interview from a fellow medium/spiritualist [8], and this listicle "24 books about Spirituality that are actually worth reading" from fupping.com.

Fupping.com has this on their about page: "Fupping aims to revolutionise the industry by putting the power to create back in the hands of you, the readers. We very much live by the mantra that if someone wants to write about it, then someone wants to read it. That is why we don’t provide guidance on the lists or recommendations you write, go crazy and write about what you love."

The article failed AfC twice for these same issues. It has been essentially untouched since it was finally accepted in August 2019. It was written and has been edited by basically one user, who likely has a COI: Liveatthesummit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

That's it. That's the AfD. If this article doesn't deserve deletion, then I'm honestly not sure what would. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 03:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 03:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 03:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 03:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 03:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC) (edited 09:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Löschen as doesn't meet WP:BIO. Sources currently do not meet WP:RS and I cannot find anything else published about him. However - I do not think that it is appropriate for the nominator to bring up a living subject's spiritual beliefs to further their point and would suggest Shibbolethink deletes these. Wikipedia has many pages on mediums. Vladimir.copic (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- done. I honestly did not think about it that way, I agree there are absolutely lots and lots of notable mediums. I simply wanted to describe the subject and his connection to the promotional sources. But now I see what you mean, and have struck that content accordingly.—Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 09:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of any notability. Cant see this as anything other than a vanity article in all probability createted either by the subject or a shill.TheLongTone (talk) 11:42, 4 August 2021 (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.