- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Christopher Joye
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Christopher Joye ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Same deletion rationale as the previous AfD, because the same content issues still apply, given the content has not changed since its undeletion. Non-notable biography, 80% of the references on the page cite works that are directly written by the subject, notability not established from third-party reliable sources, article prose is excessively promotional. The overwhelming majority of Google hits are either LinkedIn pages, promotional pages, company staff lists, blogs, columnist profiles, articles that the subject has written themselves, or a one-sentence very passing mention of the subject. This article likely exists for the purpose of search engine optimization, and does not serve any encyclopedic purpose that is within project scope. -- benlisquare T• C• E 15:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete or at best WP:TNT If the unreferenced content is removed, and the primary and non independent referenced content is removed, and the self congratulatory content is removed, there is very very little left. There is sufficent material to be found to write a reasonable stub article but that is about it. There are some "good" looking references such as this?and some balance like this? to be found about the subject, but that is about it, and I tried hard I think. If kept it needs to be redone from scratch. Aoziwe ( talk) 11:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 16:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as per my reasoning in the last AfD, such glowing article with testimonials... I thought it was an WP:AUTOBIO. There is a lack of indepth third party coverage of him as the subject. Fails WP:BIO LibStar ( talk) 00:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- 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.