Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tai Lopez

Tai Lopez

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

The references seem to point to non-notable sources and interviews. Additionally the article seems to be promotional in tone created by a single purpose account which gives concerns about undisclosed paid editing. A quick Google News search didn't show much more. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would delete this entry as an unencyclopedic advertisement but the subject and citations establish some notability. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The ~~HuffPo,~~ Vice, ~~and Forbes~~ articles on the subject of this article are significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject. Thus, this article meets WP:GNG. – by AdA&D at 06:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No HuffPo or Forbes articles. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, well you deleted them... not sure why you did that. Fwiw, the Vice article alone establishes notability. – by AdA&D at 15:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can read why I deleted them in the edit summary, and then you can be sure. What you shouldn't go doing is adding them back as minor edits, and then go calling someone petty for them warning you. The two articles I removed are not WP:RS's and therefore can't be used to establish notability. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article has reliable sources that makes this notable. This article meets WP:GNG. If there are any issues that can be resolved, please get back to me as soon as possible. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeyFeeni (talk • contribs) 12:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC) strike sock. Primefac (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources don't make an article notable. Independent reliable sources do, but one of the sources here is written by Lopez himself. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the contributor articles aren't reliable sources, especially not from Forbes. The Vice one helps, but doesn't establish notability on it's own. The rest of the sourcing in the article and elsewhere is either primary, trivial, or connected to him. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article meets Wikipedia's rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheevver (talk • contribs) 21:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC) strike sock. Primefac (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Convincing argument, but seeing as this is your first and only edit on Wikipedia, mind sharing a bit more insight on your conclusion? Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 01:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Four of the five sources are self-published or minor mentions. Only the Vice one is independent, but it isn't enough to establish notability (which requires multiple sources). Fails WP:NBIO. Narky Blert (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly Written and sounds like an advertisement. Maybe with some work it can stay, but not in this format. Even "Lopes" was misspelled in one place, which I corrected. 67 Steps is not a company, rather a product, so Lopez is not CEO of 67 Steps! Expertwikiguy (talk) 2:45 12 January 2018 (UTC)