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 keep. Given the uncontested sources, it seems like notability exists. I'll tag the page as cleanup needed since a number of concerns relate to article quality; if spam or puffery start becoming a problem, protection can be asked for - a
WP:TNT deletion does not appear to have consensus.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions)
05:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)reply
This was deleted in April 2015, recreated, speedy deleted, and that deletion brought to deletion review. The result of
that review was to overturn the G4 and bring it back here for review. The article history is a total mess. I think I've got it restored to a reasonable prior version, but it's possible a different version would make more sense.
Comment - I found this excellent piece of significant coverage in the Los Angeles Times,
[1], and of the sources linked in the older deletion discussion, did find this
little review of his company in The Star. I don't see the source as very reputable, but he also was nominated for some awards recently
here. Ordinarily this would make me lean towards a keep vote. However, since I had trouble finding much else, I'm still torn. I suspect there is some material somewhere that could push the page over the edge and into notable territory, but I myself haven't found it.
Yvarta (
talk)
01:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - The
B. O. B. (Big Orange Box) says: "(t)his biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification ... (its) topic... may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies... (it) contains original research... some of (its)... sources may not be reliable.... (it) contain(s) an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience... a major contributor to (it)... appears to have a close connection with its subject.... (and it) contains content that is written like an advertisement..." 'Nuff said.
KATMAKROFAN (
talk)
02:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Despite this article having existed almost continuously since 2004, I haven't been able to find a non-stub-length version that A) is even close to neutral, and B) has lasted more than a week before being replaced with spam. (I'd be happy to be shown to be wrong.
This is the draft version that got it to squeak past a G4 endorsement at DRV, but it's no exception.) It's abundantly obvious we can't maintain an article on this person that meets our core content policies. Notability is the wrong question to be asking. Delete. —
Cryptic02:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)reply
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that your version is neutral. There is no neutral, sourced, non-stub version to revert to and protect. —
Cryptic03:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep - The prior AFD raised issues of notability, sourcing, and wording which the current version that I've drafted addresses. The amount of spam an article does/doesn't receive is not an inclusion criteria. If it's a concern, then
WP:PROTECT applies. A lot of these comments reflect
WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
StonefieldBreeze (
talk)
21:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - I was just pinged about a new version being uploaded/reverted, and per these three sources,
[2],
[3], and Exceptional People Magazine, vote keep. I'm not thrilled to be using a publication with the name Exceptional People Magazine as a source, but there are a few others that look ok on there as well.
Yvarta (
talk)
20:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:PROMO; strictly a vanity page. No indications of notability or significance; this article exists strictly to promote the subject. The language is puffed up and the article is not neutral. Keeping such promotional articles is not in the best interest of the project.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
06:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)reply
I hope this won't be seen as snarky, but it would take all of a minute to remove the egregious fluff, and another thirty seconds to have it down to a few neutral sentences with the good sources - so being promotional shouldn't be an issue, as we have the power to clean it up, and ban repeat COI offenders. If you feel it isn't notable per refs, that is a different argument entirely, of course.
Yvarta (
talk)
01:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete the LAT piece is indeed RS coverage that was missed last time, but the other new sources are not helpful for demonstrating notability. Given that there are not multiple substantial RSs and that the article is clearly being used for promotion, deletion is the best course of action.
SmartSE (
talk)
16:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Are you volunteering to salvage? This article has been promotional spam for nearly twelve years without anyone but paid editors being willing to touch it.You should also have mentioned that you were canvassed to this afd. —
Cryptic22:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. After reviewing this article's 22 [as of this writing] inline cites and the 5 entries under "External links", I have no doubt that subject has more than sufficient celebrity as well as notability to remain as a Wikipedia entry.
—Roman Spinner(talk)(contribs)22:48, 3 October 2016 (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.
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 keep. Given the uncontested sources, it seems like notability exists. I'll tag the page as cleanup needed since a number of concerns relate to article quality; if spam or puffery start becoming a problem, protection can be asked for - a
WP:TNT deletion does not appear to have consensus.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions)
05:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)reply
This was deleted in April 2015, recreated, speedy deleted, and that deletion brought to deletion review. The result of
that review was to overturn the G4 and bring it back here for review. The article history is a total mess. I think I've got it restored to a reasonable prior version, but it's possible a different version would make more sense.
Comment - I found this excellent piece of significant coverage in the Los Angeles Times,
[1], and of the sources linked in the older deletion discussion, did find this
little review of his company in The Star. I don't see the source as very reputable, but he also was nominated for some awards recently
here. Ordinarily this would make me lean towards a keep vote. However, since I had trouble finding much else, I'm still torn. I suspect there is some material somewhere that could push the page over the edge and into notable territory, but I myself haven't found it.
Yvarta (
talk)
01:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - The
B. O. B. (Big Orange Box) says: "(t)his biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification ... (its) topic... may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies... (it) contains original research... some of (its)... sources may not be reliable.... (it) contain(s) an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience... a major contributor to (it)... appears to have a close connection with its subject.... (and it) contains content that is written like an advertisement..." 'Nuff said.
KATMAKROFAN (
talk)
02:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Despite this article having existed almost continuously since 2004, I haven't been able to find a non-stub-length version that A) is even close to neutral, and B) has lasted more than a week before being replaced with spam. (I'd be happy to be shown to be wrong.
This is the draft version that got it to squeak past a G4 endorsement at DRV, but it's no exception.) It's abundantly obvious we can't maintain an article on this person that meets our core content policies. Notability is the wrong question to be asking. Delete. —
Cryptic02:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)reply
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that your version is neutral. There is no neutral, sourced, non-stub version to revert to and protect. —
Cryptic03:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep - The prior AFD raised issues of notability, sourcing, and wording which the current version that I've drafted addresses. The amount of spam an article does/doesn't receive is not an inclusion criteria. If it's a concern, then
WP:PROTECT applies. A lot of these comments reflect
WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
StonefieldBreeze (
talk)
21:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - I was just pinged about a new version being uploaded/reverted, and per these three sources,
[2],
[3], and Exceptional People Magazine, vote keep. I'm not thrilled to be using a publication with the name Exceptional People Magazine as a source, but there are a few others that look ok on there as well.
Yvarta (
talk)
20:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:PROMO; strictly a vanity page. No indications of notability or significance; this article exists strictly to promote the subject. The language is puffed up and the article is not neutral. Keeping such promotional articles is not in the best interest of the project.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
06:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)reply
I hope this won't be seen as snarky, but it would take all of a minute to remove the egregious fluff, and another thirty seconds to have it down to a few neutral sentences with the good sources - so being promotional shouldn't be an issue, as we have the power to clean it up, and ban repeat COI offenders. If you feel it isn't notable per refs, that is a different argument entirely, of course.
Yvarta (
talk)
01:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete the LAT piece is indeed RS coverage that was missed last time, but the other new sources are not helpful for demonstrating notability. Given that there are not multiple substantial RSs and that the article is clearly being used for promotion, deletion is the best course of action.
SmartSE (
talk)
16:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Are you volunteering to salvage? This article has been promotional spam for nearly twelve years without anyone but paid editors being willing to touch it.You should also have mentioned that you were canvassed to this afd. —
Cryptic22:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. After reviewing this article's 22 [as of this writing] inline cites and the 5 entries under "External links", I have no doubt that subject has more than sufficient celebrity as well as notability to remain as a Wikipedia entry.
—Roman Spinner(talk)(contribs)22:48, 3 October 2016 (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.