Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Steele (consultant)

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Steele (consultant)

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

Completely unsourced WP:BLP of a political consultant and media commentator, which reads more like the "elevator pitch" at the top of his LinkedIn profile than an encyclopedia article. While certainly a person like this would be eligible for a Wikipedia article if it could be sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG, nothing here grants him an automatic presumption of notability in the absence of reliable source coverage -- and on a ProQuest Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies search, I'm not finding any significant coverage about him: what I get is content written by him. But a person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of media coverage, not the bylined author of it. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if good sourcing can actually be found somewhere. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Because there are no citation sources at all. 207.102.255.247 (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both of the above, and WP:BLP. Also, his connections don't matter for notability. Bearian (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I would've also considered A7 as this is thinly borderline acceptable, nothing at all for convincing notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 22 May 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.