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.

Erik de Haan (author)

Erik de Haan (author) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources actually about the subject to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are unhelpful. Most of the sources are just links to the subject's various bio pages scattered around the web and which appear to have been submitted by the subject. Most of the rest simply quote the subject but are not actually about him. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki ( talk) 06:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete The only extensive articles about "the book" (that is, the one that gets almost have of the cites in the article) were written by de Haan himself, so those do not count at RS. Other sources are bios that accompany speaking engagements, and (from experience) those are usually provided by the speaker, so those are not RS (nor are they substantial). There are a few mentions (e.g. the Sunday Times article), but there is also padding, such as Goodreads (not an RS), the publisher's site (not an RS) and at least one blog (not an RS). The New Business magazine is an actual review of the book. Unfortunately, this page was created by a now-blocked sock puppet that was creating pages for most or all Kogan authors. LaMona ( talk) 03:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - promo advert, trying to sell his self-published books, fails WP:NACADEMIC Kraxler ( talk) 17:58, 5 July 2015 (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.