Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Tuckerman

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. Pigman☿ 03:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] James Tuckerman

James Tuckerman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Self promotional autobiography that is a mere whisker away from being blatant advertising. There is little in the way of reliable sources asserting the notability of the subject. Mattinbgn\^talk 08:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Anthill Magazine. The only independent coverage I could find[1] was an interview with him, but was really about the magazine. -- Mark Chovain 08:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmm, how notable is Anthill Magazine? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - since I agree with the above, but any and all relevant information has already been included on that page. Maybe a redirect. Notability of Anthill can be discussed later.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, no secondary sources, WP:COI concerns. He's at least not a hoax, but there's no reason that this deserves encyclopaedic coverage. Ghits are basically advertising coverage only. —Moondyne click! 09:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No need to merge: all this puffery is already in the Anthill Mag article (which could do with de-peacocking even if it is notable). JohnCD (talk) 09:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthill Magazine. —Moondyne click! 09:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. For similar reasons to his magazine's AfD - no real notability asserted. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Blatant self-promotion and no hint of notability. Murtoa (talk) 10:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable publisher, and extremely self-promotional as well. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC).
• Comment In my defence, this is a first draft and we’re still yet to tone down the 'fluffery' (or work out how to properly footnote). Anthill is one of Australia's highest circulating consumer business magazines (top five). In theory, I assume that should qualify it. We have 80,000 readers who care what we say each issue (when The Australian Newspaper has a readership of 120,000, as a point of comparison). Would Wikipedia accept the top five US business magazines as being wiki-worthy? I hope so. In short, delete away, if it does sound a bit 'self-promotional'. However, I'd be more than happy to pass this to an author who knows what he or she is doing --James Tuckerman 5:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamestuckerman (talk •

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.