Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurt Mortensen

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Kurt Mortensen}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Kurt Mortensen}})

Fails WP:BLP. Multiple redlinks, relies on a single source. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Literature. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Keep you know its bad when the subject is "best known" for a book that isn't notable enough for its own page that combined with the lack of sources makes me have to vote delete UPDATE: i have changed my vote to keep as sources have now been presented Scooby453w (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete due to lack of of WP:SIGCOV, it needs more sources covering him. LemonberryPie (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete A page cannot rely on one source and expect to survive. If more sources can be found to support notability and bolster the article, that is a different conversation.Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. While I am usually very suspicious of articles about this kind of business/self-help author, the reviews for his books are well past the threshold for WP:NAUTHOR. Reviews of Maximum Influence in [https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/jcm.2005.22.6.359.3/full/html the Journal of Consumer Marketing], [https://roanoke.com/archive/12-universal-laws-show-theorys-insight-into-reality/article_2ebab390-f491-5567-922d-50acb1d57008.html the Roanoke Times], [https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/twelve-techniques-for-friendly-persuasion/article4124318/ the Globe and Mail] and [https://www.proquest.com/docview/463922401 the Miami Herald]. Reviews of Persuasion IQ in [https://www.publishersweekly.com/9780814409930 Publishers Weekly] (and [https://www.publishersweekly.com/9781423364092] for the audiobook), [https://www.proquest.com/docview/853242240 the Agent's Sales Journal], [https://www.proquest.com/docview/898607452 Career Planning and Adult Development], [https://aornjournal.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1016/j.aorn.2008.11.026 AORN Journal] and [https://utppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3138/jspr.30.3.247?journalCode=jspr the Journal of School Public Relations]. Reviews of The Laws of Charisma in [https://www.publishersweekly.com/9780814415917 Publishers Weekly], [https://www.proquest.com/docview/818751294 Life Insurance Selling] and [https://utppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3138/jspr.33.4.335 the Journal of School Public Relations]. MCE89 (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• :These sources essentially encourage separate articles for his books, As PARAKANYAA said, his books are notable, although I disagree that business-type books are better served by an author page. Especially with the amount of sources about the books rather than the author, Kurt.
• :I'd encourage the creation of articles for their books, but continue with the deletion of this page as it isn't notable on its own despite WP:NAUTHOR, since the article fails WP:BLP more significantly than NAUTHOR. It doesn't seem to have been written responsibly. It relies on a source from a decade & a half ago and is a relatively unknown person, among other reasoning. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::I don't really know what you mean by "fails WP:BLP"? BLP isn't a notability guideline — the relevant notability guideline here is WP:NAUTHOR, which says that a person who has created a {{tq|a significant or well-known work or collective body of work}} that has been the subject of multiple reviews is themselves notable, even if that person hasn't been the subject of secondary biographical coverage. It is very common for articles about authors to be based on reviews of their books. And I'm happy to add the above reviews to the article as sources whenever I get a chance. MCE89 (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::I concede there. But the above points still stand, and until those sources are added & attributed properly and the article expanded (if those sources are secondary and verifiable, which may not be the case) I believe deletion is still viable. By "fails WP:BLP", I meant it did not meet the content policy for having high quality articles, as stated in its summary it is necessary to take "particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" NikolaiVektovich (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::So to clarify, you do agree that this person meets NAUTHOR and are arguing for deletion based on the following reasons at this point:
• ::::* The article is poorly written.
• ::::* The sources in AfD have not been placed in the article.
• ::::* The article is of start/stub class length.
• ::::Offhand only one of those is a valid reason for deletion. Being a short article isn't in and of itself a reason for deletion. An article can be an eternal stub and still be considered worthy of an article - it only has to pass notability requirements. Now a very short article can sometimes be merged into another, if there is an appropriate parent article, but this isn't the case here. As far as the sourcing issue goes, sourcing does not have to be present in the article to establish notability. It should absolutely be added, yes, but the sourcing only has to exist and be of suitable quality and type to establish notability.
• ::::Now the quality argument can be used as an argument for deletion, but this is only meant to be used in very extreme cases, where the article has so many issues that it would be easier to just delete it all and start fresh. These issues are typically things like promotional content and copyright violation, as well as a history of sockpuppetry. This article does need editing, but I wouldn't say that it's so problematic that it needs to be wiped clean from Wikipedia. It just needs some pruning. I also don't see an issue with copyvio and the article doesn't seem to have any issues with sockpuppetry either.
• ::::I get where you're coming from with this, but this is one where the author meets notability guidelines and cleaning up the article isn't a hugely gargantuan task. He's probably always going to be a stub article since he's not overwhelmingly notable, but like I said above, being an eternal stub or start class article doesn't mean that something can't also be notable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Well thank you all for the insight, I'll have to rethink it the next time I mark something for deletion. Seeing that new sources have been attributed and the article largely improved to stub status, Seeing the consensus shift, I request for this discussion to close early as per WP:SNOW & Wikipedia:Deletion_process#SNOW, unless we include the vague delete votes that don't contribute to consensus significantly. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Sorry i haven't changed my vote yet. I was engaging in other afd discussions Scooby453w (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:Keep per MCE89... that his books don't have articles yet does not mean they aren't notable. Business type books especially are better served by an author page. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::I honestly agree with that. Articles for those are often kind of undersourced (even if they pass NBOOK) and are particularly prone to puffery. Honestly, a lot of times authors in this realm of things tend to kind of write about the same topics, but from different angles, so sometimes all that is needed is a general overview of what the author writes about. I also think that having an author page often discourages people from writing the individual book pages (and same for series pages and individual entries). People are sometimes just looking to see if it's on here and when it's not, that's when we sometimes get people coming on to create articles - sometimes with good intent, sometimes to promote. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. The author passes notability guidelines as his works have been covered in multiple, independent, and secondary reliable sources. He'll never be anyone super mainstream, but he's received enough attention to pass NAUTHOR. Also, as stated above I think that having a page for him would be best here, as opposed to ones for his books. We can have a general overview and cover it all well enough there, as opposed to 2-3 individual and lackluster (but still passing NBOOK) entries. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: per ROTP and MCE, meets NAUTHOR Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:

• Keep per WP:HEY. I'm not a fan of these self-help types of books, but if the subject's books are reviewed in reliable sources, then he's probably notable. The article has been improved two ways: deletion of BLP violations and trivia, and by added sources. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.