179:. I agree that this is an awful article. However, Sheets is definitely notable. There are over a hundred thousand hits to his name on Google. He is a well-known "informercial" spokesman who has come under a great deal of criticism that needs to be fully and completely reflected in this article. That "institute" however is just a marketing gimmick and should be deleted or merged into this article. The reason is that Sheets is well known to any viewer of late night TV, but his "institute" is not.--
294:
May not be a bad solution. Only am in favor of this article if it can be written as a properly sourced article that can't be read as endorsement of his dubious "no money down" program. If and when this thing is canned, I will try to see if there is a good piece on him in, say, the Wall Street
Journal
121:
This page is probably deletable as spam/G11, I admit. The reason I bring it here is because its companion page, for the PEI, is long-established, and is not spam, as it contains a criticism section. Both articles suffer from a lack of verifiable sources, and should best be considered to together.
227:
I don't generally approve of the weak/strong keep/delete nomination, but... I think the present article falls far below the standards of quality for
Knowledge (XXG), I really think it ought to be deleted rather than kept in it's present state. I agree that notability may be achieved by this case,
160:
282:
without prejudice against a better bio being written; currently it has no RS and notability isnt well established in the article. This article has been around for years and is still virtually an orphan.
244:
114:
194:
268:
Guidelines. If someone can change this, then I will reconsider my "delete" comment, but until then no reliable sources = no notability = no article. --
246:. However, I agree that without some good reliable sources reflecting the dubious nature of this person's theories, the article should be deleted.--
260:
So far there's been talk of latenight television, etc., but no sign of any reliable sources to prove notability per the requirements of the
87:
82:
91:
17:
304:
A check of the last 10 years worth of archives turned up nothing in the Wall Street
Journal or any other Dow Jones publication -- I
74:
295:
that might be the used as the source of an article. I am fairly sure I have seen articles on him in investment publications.--
331:
36:
127:
228:
but notability is not the only criterion. I don't know whether the many internet sources (representative example:
330:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
314:
299:
287:
274:
250:
236:
219:
203:
183:
169:
148:
138:
56:
232:) can be buttressed by reliable sources, but I think that needs to be done before the article can be kept.
78:
229:
145:
296:
247:
180:
50:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
265:
312:
272:
201:
70:
62:
261:
233:
166:
243:
I noticed a few "offhand" references from apparently reliable sources on Google News
216:
305:
108:
284:
309:
269:
198:
135:
215:
since I proposed the speedy delete. But don't look to me to fix this one.
48:
the current version, without prejudice to recreation of a better article.
230:"Carleton Sheets No Down Payment Complaints" on infomercialscams.com
324:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
104:
100:
96:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
161:list of Academics and educators-related deletions
334:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
144:I've added some comments on the talk page.
159:: This debate has been included in the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
193:100,000 raw hits on Google but just
24:
128:Professional Education Institute
1:
351:
130:above somehow survives),
327:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
315:04:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
300:15:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
288:03:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
275:03:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
251:15:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
237:21:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
220:16:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
204:03:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
184:16:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
170:19:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
149:18:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
139:15:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
57:09:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
195:565 unique Google hits
213:Change to weak keep
164:
342:
329:
262:Reliable Sources
155:
112:
94:
53:
34:
350:
349:
345:
344:
343:
341:
340:
339:
338:
332:deletion review
325:
285:John Vandenberg
85:
71:Carleton Sheets
69:
66:
63:Carleton Sheets
51:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
348:
346:
337:
336:
320:
319:
318:
317:
297:Mantanmoreland
291:
290:
277:
254:
253:
248:Mantanmoreland
240:
239:
222:
209:
208:
207:
206:
187:
186:
181:Mantanmoreland
173:
172:
152:
151:
119:
118:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
347:
335:
333:
328:
322:
321:
316:
313:
311:
307:
303:
302:
301:
298:
293:
292:
289:
286:
281:
278:
276:
273:
271:
267:
263:
259:
256:
255:
252:
249:
245:
242:
241:
238:
235:
231:
226:
223:
221:
218:
214:
211:
210:
205:
202:
200:
196:
191:
190:
189:
188:
185:
182:
178:
175:
174:
171:
168:
162:
158:
154:
153:
150:
147:
143:
142:
141:
140:
137:
133:
129:
125:
116:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
54:
52:Daniel Bryant
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
326:
323:
279:
257:
224:
212:
177:Keep but fix
176:
156:
146:63.215.28.84
131:
123:
120:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
225:weak delete
266:Notability
234:Pete.Hurd
167:Pete.Hurd
132:redirect
115:View log
306:checked
217:Bearian
126:or (if
88:protect
83:history
280:Delete
258:Delete
124:Delete
92:delete
46:delete
310:A. B.
270:A. B.
199:A. B.
192:: -->
136:Xoloz
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
308:. --
264:and
197:. --
157:Note
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
165:--
163:.
113:– (
134:.
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
117:)
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.