- 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. Kurykh 03:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Assertion of notability not backed up by third party sources. The article seems to be a spam ad for own website. Emana (Talk) 19:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article's terrible as it stands, but the subject gets tens of thousands of Google hits. However, there don't seem to be many reliable sources that I can track down, anyhow, that indicate strong notability. Weak delete unless someone turns up some solid reliable sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral.Tons of ghits, but that may be engineered. He's been investigated by the SEC, though: http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/app18359.htm. Surely there must be some press about this guy? Pburka (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Delete. Looks like it's 100% self promotion and link farms. Very sophisticated, but no indication of notability beyond the SEC investigation. Pburka (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Original research and opinions are present throughout the article. Google search turns up very few third party sources, which are probably not reliable. Timmeh! 00:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unreferenced, too short, and original research. He probably does not meet notability, either. ― LADY GALAXY 01:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable and extremely random. Seems like just any random person who you might meet at your neighborhood. Mythdon (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:OR and possibly WP:NN. ScarianCall me Pat 15:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the tone of the article is frankly terrible, and reads more like a glowing obit than a proper encyclopædia article. I'm reasonably certain this guy fails notability criteria, as well. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 02:42, 27 January 2008 (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.