Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Zanger

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Zanger

[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)

This article does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There seems to have been a single article appropriate for use in the article published by both CNN and Fortune back in the year 2000, but I can't find any other coverage that we can use. The article seems highly promotional, and while that isn't a rationale for deletion, I suspect either the article subject or their followers might have edited it. TraderCharlotte (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I like to include a note to the article subject (in case they see the discussion; I haven't notified them) every time I nominate a person's biography for deletion, so I would like to note to Mr. Zanger that just because your article is nominated for deletion, it doesn't mean that your achievements are any less impressive. Wikipedia has strict guidelines for who qualifies for an article. Also, just because this article is nominated, it doesn't necessarily mean that the article will be deleted, this is just a discussion among Wikipedia editors meant to determine what will happen. TraderCharlotte (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely promotional, has several videos on YouTube about how you can recreate what he did. I find no other sources that we can use. Ton of hits on NewTraderU, written by him, that are press releases. Oaktree b (talk) 02:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and California. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is blatantly promotional and fits completely with an MO of promoting the subject's website. The Forbes article is so old that it's impossible to tell if it was a staff writer or a contributor, or even if it was a sponsored article. In any case, "pay for play" is not impossible at Forbes even with staff writers, and makes economic sense when you are running a business whose success depends on credibility derived from media narratives, which is the case with this subject. Given that there are so few references to the subject's financial success, and the two that do exist are extremely promotional in nature, and given the fact that the subject runs a business that is highly dependent on the credibility derived from these dubious and weakly supported claims, I think it's safe to say that this is a clear case of WP:PROMO. Even if the reliability of the sources could be confirmed, there are only two of them, meaning the subject fails WP:GNG.Chagropango (talk) 05:27, 8 August 2022 (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.