Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Chertavian

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Chertavian

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

Overly Promotional article for non notable entrepreneur. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Year Up for his organisation. Claim of bestselling is not sourced. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Of the current sourcing: 1. NYTimes is an article by him, not about him. 2-5. His orgs website, not independent. 6. Not a reliable source. 7. Press release. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete insufficient evidence of notability from independent sources. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. very highly promotional eg " he would have to travel a difficult path to realize his potential." " the enormous talent and potential going to waste in America" , "dvocates for broader systems change to increase opportunities for disconnected young adults." ; and with inadequate sources. Created in single edit by obvious spa who is very unlikely to have been a genuine new editor. This might be a g11 speedy . DGG ( talk ) 20:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not only is this currently simply not convincing enough, my searches simply found nothing better than expected coverage at News, Books, browsers and Highbeam. SwisterTwister talk 00:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:51, 1 March 2016 (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.