Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Manning

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Manning

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

Fails WP:BASIC. None of the sources are about the subject of the article. Many are articles that he has written, but I can't find any that discuss his writing. Others are unreliable or not independent. Searches for ""luke manning" musician", ""luke manning" journalist" and ""luke manning" businessman" don't bring up any possible sources. SmartSE (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator, unsourced and not notable --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is impressive. So many assertions to notability that so thoroughly fail to meet WP:GNG. The day may come that this person will be notable. Today is not that day. §FreeRangeFrog 21:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Strong evidence of WP:COI edits from 109.204.47.69 [[1]] which has also recently been involved in controversial/astroturfing edits to Wonga.com - see [2] and others. Luke Manning is named as having involvement with the official company blog OpenWonga.com. No indication beyond this that the subject is sufficiently notable. 109.144.202.31 (talk) 12:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject has done many things (impressive even) one would expect by a journalist and CEO (writing articles, starting companies). However simply being a journalist and CEO is not notable on Wikipedia; we don't have an open policy that every journalist and CEO gets an article. Rather, other people (secondary sources) need to have written about the subject, this is our yardstick that the subject has done something out of the ordinary and are thus notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a nicely-written article about an interesting subject that sadly appears to fail WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 10:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all of the good reasons already given. Qworty (talk) 05:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the citations seem to constitute evidence of notability. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2012 (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.