Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Barker (hypnotist)

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 keep. Consensus appears to have been demonstrated through reliable references after two relists, although will acknowledge as a closing comment that it is slim and arguments have been made in both directions. KaisaL (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Barker (hypnotist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article screams of paid advocacy work, (just look at the infobox picture), and there doesn't seem to be actual notability established. All of the sources, with one exception (Las Vegas Sun), are from local news outlets... and the bizjournal source is only an interview (which appears to be PR). Suggest deleting this article, as I doubt further notability will actually be established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subject lacks coverage in independent reliable sources and page reads like an advertisement. Meatsgains (talk) 03:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• We can help to make this article more resourceful since Richard barker is actively involved in many activities and this way he is famous in his work. Many users are not very experienced in Wikipedia so users on wikipedia can support others to make articles resourceful. Also, it would be encouraging new users to contribute to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.125.253.228 (talk) 06:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lacks sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• See WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The subject actually meets WP:BASIC, having received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. Also, the article does not have a promotional tone at this time; it simply provides an overview about the subject, based upon what reliable sources have reported. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The references specified above are either press releases or notices of appearance, or both., All partof a promotional campaign. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an good reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Reviewing the provided sources above...
  • Las Vegas Sun - This is a notable, reliable newspaper. The article is about the subject, not merely a mention. Not a press release or notice of appearance, this is a full article.

it certainly isa PR. He describes his own technique. `` — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

He didn't publish this, and he didn't write these words. A writer for the paper wrote the article, an editor reviewed it, it passed a selective criteria for the paper. This is not self publishing, thus, it is not PR. Fieari (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Orlando Sentinel - This is a notable, reliable newspaper. The article is about the subject, not merely a mention. Not a press release or notice of appearance, this is a full article.
  • Orlando Business Journal - Small circulation newspaper, would not, in and of itself, grant notability, but is a reliable source to provide facts for the article, and lends weight to notability claims. The fact that this article is purely an interview might suggest promotionalism, except that it's not a self-published interview.

Orlando Business Journal and all similar local business journals, are entirely and totally vehicles for PR. We've never accepted them as RS for notability and rarely as a RS for anything else either . DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute that this would not, by itself, be enough to establish notability. I only suggest that it adds weight, and that it can be used when notability has been independently established. Fieari (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Coeur d'Alene Press - Another small circulation newspaper that would not, in and of itself, grant notability. In this case, however, it is a full article, and the article is about the subject, not merely a mention. Also not a press release or notice of appearance.

I think that's enough of a source review, anyway. This article meets or exceeds our notability criteria, and the article itself is purely factual, without any promotional spin. I must !vote Keep, and question the !votes above, particularly that of @DGG:. I simply don't see any press releases, appearance notices, or self-published puff pieces. I do see legitimate news coverage. Fieari (talk) 05:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – The news articles I posted above are bylined news articles written by staff writers for independent, reliable sources. No evidence of the sources supposedly being "press releases" has been provided, and such evidence is unlikely to be found, because they are not. Repeatedly insisting that bylined news articles are press releases without any proof of such claim is essentially an unfounded proof by assertion, rather than proof by facts. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia does not tolerate advertising of any kind, and this is clearly advertising, presumably undeclared paid advocacy as Coffee says; I note that two SPAs have worked on it, in the classic Orangemoody pattern. Regardless of notability, this should be deleted, without prejudice to subsequent re-creation by a non-involved editor. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Are we even reading the same article, Justlettersandnumbers? There is nothing here that is written as an advertisement. Assume notability for a moment... other than having a page that states that a thing exists, what about this is advertising, as opposed to be a dry encyclopedic listing of reliable facts? Having a single purpose editor does not, independently of an article's content, render an article void. Heck, I even support PAID content in Wikipedia as long as it is encyclopedic and follows all our policies. And I assert that this article is encyclopedic, devoid of advertising language, and furthermore, has been established to be notable by at least two independent reliable sources. Fieari (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur that the article presently does not have a promotional tone, peacock phrasings or promotional praise for the subject. It's a neutrally-worded, expandable stub-class article that provides a general overview about the subject. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It may have been a paid article, but I'm not seeing anything WP:TNT-worthy now, and the sources above, which are obviously not all press releases, demonstrate WP:BIO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Are there any more sources that can be added to make this more viable toward the policy?. Simplespeed4ce (talk) 03:32, 30 June 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.