Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Hartley

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 speedy delete. Per G5, although for the record, the subject is also clearly judged to not be notable per the discussion. SmartSE (talk) 12:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Hartley[edit]

[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)

WP:NACADEMIC doesn't apply, as he is still a PhD student and his publication record is not sufficient for that. Evaluating the sources as in Special:PermaLink/1143060926: 1-3 are short self bios; 4 is a profile on a student, not particularly independent; 5-9 are written by Jon Hartley so not independent; 10 is a single-sentence quote from him; 11 only indicates that he chairs the club; 12 is from a think tank about their own employee - not reliable or independent; 13 is Forbes under 30 with a very short bio and not a notable honor in terms of WP:NBIO. I really don't see the sources for WP:GNG (nor could I find any more). Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and, likely as a result of the sources, the article has a very promotional tone to it. FranklinOfNull (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass of WP:Prof wildly promotional. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Delete agree with source assessment, this is promo. I don't find any mentions in RS for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 04:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While there are sources applied, I see no sourced assertion of significance and notability. Why are they more notable than other student economist? This is a BLP with many biographical assertions without any citation. This article is about an ordinary academic and might be really handy if the subject was looking for a gig... Wildly Promotional, as has been mentioned by wiser than me. BusterD (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree, also this might be off-topic I'm kind of surprised that this BLP article was marked as patrolled by an experienced new page patroller when it was in this condition... VickKiang (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Might perhaps become notable in the future (like any living person might) but not there yet. Jeppiz (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good analysis of sources by the nominator. Doesn't pass WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:BASIC. The evidence for the latter is that from all the sources assembled one can not derive a few paragraphs of encyclopedic prose, which is observable from the promotional character of this biography (multiple weak sources + trying too hard to include almost everything of what's in them). —Alalch E. 23:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons given above. --Bduke (talk) 05:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G5. Creator has been blocked as a sockpuppet, so there is likely UPE. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 12:05, 8 March 2023 (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.