Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Mayo (2nd nomination)

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. There is consensus that the subject fails WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Mayo

[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)

No evidence of any notability. Unsourced since 2006 and searches only reveal the usual social media sites and book sellers, nothing more. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't have a strong opinion. It's certainly marginal at best and the loss of the article would cost us little. So let's see...
- It's too short to be a very good article. There doesn't seem much to say about Mr Mayo. The article is really just a stand in for the school, which had an article which was deleted. I don't know if there's ref'd material out there to expand the article -- quite possibly not.
- And FWIW the school may have been a promotional article, which means this one would be too. With commercial entities that always something to consider, at the margins.
- On the other hand, the Mayo School has existed for a half-century now and seems to be a real place with real teachers and real classes and so forth, I guess. I would image that (astrology not being a hot high-demand field I suppose) it must be one of the larger schools in the field.
- The page views is running two a day, which is quite low. On the other hand, why do we need to tell even these two people "Oh, read about Jeff Mayo or the Mayo School and want to found out what he/it is, did you? Well go pound sand cos we're tired of telling you."
- On the other other hand, Google has not really heard of this guy or this school. "'Jeff Mayo' -wikipedia" is all about a veterinarian in Washington State and a school official in Tennessee. So he doesn't appear to be capable of meeting WP:BIO, not even close, unless some extensive digging is done maybe.
- On the other other other hand, it appears that his books have been published by actual reputable publishers... Astrology: A Key to Personality is apparently related to Penguin Books or maybe to C W Daniel which was bought by Random House, and How to Read the Ephemeris was apparently first published by the University of California, or something. Shambhala Publications also published some, and altho they're an "indy" publisher they're real and established with a good catalog. Teach Yourself Astrology was published by the English Universities Press which was apparently bought up by Hodder & Stoughton, a legit press.

So he's not running these off on a mimeograph in his mom's basement, and maybe he's a real expert in this (old and famous and historically important, if now rather niche and outré) field. It looks like that one book is a (scholarly?) analysis of Raphael's Ephemeris, which was written in the early 18th century and has a an article here, so it's not nothing I guess.

OK. So, hmmm. I still can't decide, not without more research. But, the article is obviously going to be deleted, simply by the more or less autonomic functioning of the Wikipedia nervous system -- "Does not meet WP:GNG, delete, next" -- so I dunno if further analysis is worthwhile. Will we be deleting an important published expert in an important field? I... yeah, maybe. But there's only so much vetting of 2-reader-a-day articles that people are willing to spend time on. I'm not. It is what it is. My work here is done, carry on! Herostratus (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Advise Keep at this point, it's been a week and nobody seems to care about it either way, so the default would be "no change" and anyway the article is not hurting anyone I guess, so you can count me in the Keep league for the purposes of deciding. Herostratus (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Herostratus - you are going for Keep for an article with zero sources and zero searchable sources? This seems wholly inconsistent with WP:GNG. Please can you provide a rationale for this based on Wikipedia policy and guidance please? Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is inconsistent with GNG. That's certainly a serious issue, yes. GNG is s guideline, and it's an important one I've referenced often. It's an important guideline but still guideline, and WP:IAR is a policy, and a core one, and as WP:1Q puts it, the question is "Does it make Wikipedia better or not? If yes, keep the article". It says here people searching on the string "jeff mayo" will be better served by this page than getting a "page does not exist" message. Prove me wrong. here is a blurb and chart for mayo, here is a brief remembrance. Maybe there's more. I'm OK with "Jeff Mayo was a person, here's his vital stats, he founded and ran such-and-so important school, and wrote some important books, and here's a list of them." That's useful data. You don't have to agree and that's fine too. Herostratus (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG. (t · c) buidhe 14:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Newspapers.com has a few trivial mentions of "Jeff Mayo Astrology", but I found no reviews of his work or articles about him. Searching Google for the same found no WP:RS sources. Google Scholar has a few citations, many are not peer reviewed journals. The references in possibly peer reviewed journals are at best trivial. The article meets none of the criteria listed at WP:AUTHOR Cxbrx (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This looks like a WP:COATRACK for the school, the man himself does not seem very notable, and since he's been dead for twenty years it seems unlikely that he will do anything to become notable in the future. jp×g 21:07, 28 November 2020 (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.