Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve MacLaughlin

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. T. Canens (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steve MacLaughlin

[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)

Promotional article on non-notable author. He has actually written only one book, and the evidence that it's a best seller is its amazon rank, which is unreliable.

The article makes claims for him as an educator, but he's only been an adjunct in individual courses.

Essentially everything else here in the purported references is a article or posting he wrote himself, or just a citation of his work.

A single city's 40 under 40 for one year is a promotional device, not a true award. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as PROMO for a self-promoting expert on managing non-profits. Nom pegs it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unambiguous WP:PROMO. "Saltire Press" seems to be the branding for this person's self-publishing efforts. Also note that ~~the~~ one highly-focused account that ~~created~~ edited this page is called "thesaltire". Bakazaka (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lost track of SPAs there. VeritasCaritate is right about which highly-focused account created this page, so I struck and updated my comment accordingly. Bakazaka (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Still learning the ropes on WP and have made a first attempt to clean up the article to a neutral point of view. There appears to be several verifiable and reliable third-party sources for this article. A review of this article's history shows it was created by user "Nordberg303" in 2013 and the extended confirmed user "Theonesean" moved it from review to creation. If notability is not temporary and this article previously went through a review process, then it is unclear what is different several years later. I am starting to clean up a lot of articles related to the nonprofit sector and this is less problematic than many others.VeritasCaritate (talk) 03:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
VeritasCaritate, do you have any undisclosed connection to Steve McLaughlin? Bakazaka (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have seen him speak and familiar with his research. There are probably a dozen experts on fundraising that you are going to see at a conference or come across in articles about the nonprofit sector at some point. Some more clean up on the article is probably warranted, but I am finding that to be true across this whole domain area too.VeritasCaritate (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. If you don't mind answering another question: how did you find your way to this AfD discussion shortly after creating a new account? Historically, when someone creates an account, makes ten minor edits to get autoconfirmed and starts a user page to seem like they're not here for the AfD, then jumps to the target of the AfD and the AfD itself, it raises suspicions, particularly for an article that has a history of editing by WP:SPA accounts. So I'm asking explicitly just in case anyone has that impression. Bakazaka (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By going down the rabbit hole. Started with a list of the high level article topics and seeing where they went. Trying to make sense of how voluntary sector and charitable giving articles are organized. It is a bit overwhelming where to start trying to clean up or improve a deep set of articles. Added to that list people that were referenced or related to the topic. Again, clean up appears to be a common theme. This article was the first one that had the deletion banner, although my list has some others where there are promotional banners at the top. Not sure if there is a better way to do this, but I have just been keeping a list outside WP to try and keep track of articles that need attention. Many of these articles have little to no talk page activity. Worth noting the under representation of women as either references or articles. Would like to improve there where it is appropriate.VeritasCaritate (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to explain. Bakazaka (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Veritas, I am not seeing the "verifiable and reliable third-party sources" that you mention, one of the difficulties with overstuffing pages with articles is that editors at AfD may have difficulty sorting out the valid sources. I might be persuaded is you would bring several sources that meet WP:SIGCOV. But I am not seeing anything like WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - E.M.Gregory, ok let me try to note several sources. First, there is the third party source from Columbia University http://sps.columbia.edu/nonprofit-management/faculty/steve-maclaughlin and there is a further link to the specific course that is a required by all students in the graduate program. Recent article from The NonProfit Times from 2019 about giving in the U.S. is here: https://www.thenonprofittimes.com/financial/giving-squeezed-out-probable-1-5-gain-in-2018/. Another 2019 article from Exempt Magazine, which is another publication of The NonProfit Times on fundraising technology is here: https://www.exemptmagazine.com/technology/cloud-is-raining-data-flooding-fundraising-with-information/. Article in the print version of Advancing Philanthropy, which is the Association of Fundraising Professionals member publication is here: https://afpglobal.org/news/rethinking-capital-campaigns-data-driven-fundraising-steve-maclaughlin-blackbaud-and-ross. The Chronicle of Philanthropy has an interview from 2016 here: https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Analytics-Expert-Offers-Advice/237638 and additional coverage of Giving Tuesday from 2019 is here: https://www.philanthropy.com/article/6-Things-Data-Tells-Us-About/244965. Third Sector is a publication in the UK and there was a book review here: https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/book-review-anecdotal-guide-better-use-data/digital/article/1410230. In the nonprofit sector it's The Chronicle of Philanthropy, The NonProfit Times, and Third Sector that are close as you get to Vogue or The New York Times (and the subject of this article has appeared in the NYT at least three times https://www.nytimes.com/search?query=%22Steve+MacLaughlin%22. The Association of Fundraising Professionals is the largest membership organization in the fundraising profession. If I had some more time today, then I could probably keep identifying additional coverage from print or reputable known sources -- excluding blogs and other things. I am trying to be neutral, but also have experience in this domain that helps to understand what is what. Is the kind of thing that is helpful? VeritasCaritate (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Interviews, quotes, and passing mentions are not significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) and don't count toward notability. Do you have any sources that actually cover this subject? Bakazaka (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you for bringing these sources. They reinforce my view that WP:GNG has NOT been met.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. This is a learning process for sure. Would it be helpful to have Theonesean weigh in on this? As I understand it, there was a AfC back in 2013 for this article that was approved. His user page notes that he spent a lot of time on "reviewing and approving articles" prior to 2018. One would assume that questions about notability or sources are part of that initial approval process, right? Which would be different if an article is created out of thin air and did not go through an approval process.VeritasCaritate (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMOTION. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2019 (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.