Deletion of Nicholas Lore

Comment: COI concerns aside, there is some substantial evidence of meeting  and . Note that people who ask for articles to be ''about'' the subject for meeting notability are misguided: the guideline is explicit on this: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: per nom and per  (the guideline that should be used for this article).  — Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: Cited mentions are trivial (other than ''The Gazette'') and mentioning them and the other marketing at work on the Internet is more  than . I'd also like to see the awards for his "award-winning" career
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipuffery (WP:PUFF||WP:N)

Comment: Per , ''significant coverage in independent reliable sources''. Many journalists over a long period of time in the ''New York Times'', ''LA Times'', ''Washington Post'' have approached Lore either for a quote or to build an article around. It shows us that multiple independent reliable sources consider him a person of note to speak on career counseling. The article is already beyond a stub so concerns about not enough existing material for a bio doesn't seem accurate and there is no deadline on when the article has to be further expanded, we just wait for more sources. For example, I wish we could find a secondary source for the quote from Bill Clinton who praised Lore, but for now it's only primaryhttp://www.reuters.com/article/2008/10/28/idUS158641+28-Oct-2008+PRN20081028 and can't be used
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: sorry, but I'm not convinced there is enough significant coverage of the subject for the subject to be considered |notable. For the most part, the "sources" provided are not coverage of the subject but are coverage of other people or subjects with commentary from the subject or a mention of the subject somehow being credited with some of their success - that is not, as far as I am concerned, significant coverage of the subject. I think we need to distinguish between the subject and the advice the subject has given (effectively his "product", given he is a "consultant" or "advisor"). Acknowledging that the subject has given advice to others is not the same as giving significant coverage to the subject himself. He is providing a product and people have purchased that product. That doesn't make the manufacturer of the product notable, even if the "product" is verbal advice from the subject. Conrad Murray is not notable for being Michael Jackson's doctor (even now, his name redirects to his trial rather than a biographical article). In the same way, Nicholas Lore is not notable for giving advice to others about their careers or for the careers he has "re-designed", even if the advice or the "result" of the advice has subsequently been mentioned in media coverage. Even if we could somehow get our heads around the advice itself (under whatever name) being "notable", the subject would still not be notable for the products he has produced, as far as I'm concerned
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: The two NY Times articles make statements about his work and background, in addition to indirectly (no quote marks) quoting him, and are significant coverage. The nominator went through the article and removed refs to the two New York Times articles as dead links, then removed the text they were there to support as unsourced.An article about him in a local paper was removed as a deadlink, as was the text it supported. A Wall Street Journal article from 1998 that purportedly said the older edition of his "Pathfinder" book was a national bestseller was also removed. It would be easy to check the accuracy of that info at a library. Someone with the 2 NY Times article, the lengthy local newspaper article, and who actually had a national bestseller, would have a good  case for satisfying . If you can't click and see an article online, that does not justify your immediately removing the reference and the text it supports. Most libraries provide microfilm or online access to these papers. Another editor has since added online links to the 2 NYT articles and the local paper article. The Wall Street Journal is behind paywall, but that does not justify removing it as a deadlink.   There was removed as a ref a book which said he was a friend and roommate of musician John Sebastian, and http://books.google.com/books?id=cia6lyn3c4YC&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:alan+inauthor:govenar&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e9uJUK23J6K-yQHAlYH4Ag&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=lore&f=false you can verified that it says that, though that does not contribute to notability. It could still be mentioned if the article is kept. Starting as a COI article is not grounds for deletion if an article satisfies . Material self-published by the article subject may be used in some cases, as outlined at  but it does not establish notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:BIO||WP:SELFPUB)

Comment: Google news archive search for "Nicholas Lore" and "Rockport" http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Nicholas+Lore%22&tbm=nws&tbs=ar:1#hl=en&safe=off&tbs=ar:1&tbm=nws&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22Nicholas+Lore%22+%22Rockport%22&oq=%22Nicholas+Lore%22+%22Rockport%22&gs_l=serp.3...1286.3269.1.3452.5.5.0.0.0.0.178.623.0j5.5.0...0.0...1c.1.zY4uJsV2vuI&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=6f5e213c3e313bb7&bpcl=35466521&biw=939&bih=575 shows 31 results.  Many are hidden behind paywalls.  I used my Highbeam account and found 14 results.  One of them is http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-189330181.html ''Nicholas Lore and the Rockport Institute: Great Source for Stories on Selecting and Changing Careers.'' Science Letter, November 11, 2008.  It gives ample coverage in a full article about him.  All the articles found quote him, he an expert in his field.  So he meets requirement one of  ''The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.'' His book was apparently a bestseller, they mentioning it.  ''The person has created ... a significant or well-known work, ... that has been the subject ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.''  He passes  and  just fine
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR||WP:GNG||WP:AUTHOR)