Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richie Norton

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Norton

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

No demonstration of notability. Struggling to find enough independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 09:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep on wikipedia; Sorry to say but this deletion nomination is flawed because I have nothing to do with the business, so I am not SPA, the article is not about a business or the person's business. It is basic biography of a person who has received internet news and media coverage in depth, whose book I read and decided to create the article. You can see that the article has 57 references. He is certainly notable. The article is not even a tad bit promotional, go read it. It only says who he is and why he is notable. The article describes facts only. --Tocsgmli (talk) 09:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — The number of references on the page is a weak argument, considering that many of the references are duplicated. For example, the "About" page of the subject's personal website appears six times in the references list. The actual number of unique references is 43, among which are multiple pages from the same domains (four articles from Deseret News, six from Forbes). dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 10:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, lets consider 43 but multiple times of news or forbes articles does not mean they are less references. Each coverage in forbes is actually more of reason to consider notable. Each of them are different. Next, all articles about them, including CNN are not just mentioning them, they are describing whole story. That depth of coverage in reliable sources means he is notable. I actually think that his wife may also be notable as an Emmy award winner but as whole, just talking about Richie Norton, he is quite notable with all coverage, this is not struggling coverage as edward says. Tocsgmli (talk) 10:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — 57 references for a page that is little more than a stub? Someone is rather more than just a bit determined to get Mr Norton on Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are mostly garbage. I started going through them, and then gave up trying to fix the article. Richie is a relentless self-promoter who hasn't really done anything worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. But, as one of the sources says : "When it comes to doing your own PR (particularly without overtly promoting yourself), author, business advisor and personal development/management coach Richie Norton is surely one of the best." Mduvekot (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR. Pretty clearly a PR piece as written. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:BIO, and the article is obviously promotional. Nick-D (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 16 September 2017 (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.