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. Closing as keep by strength of arguments, particularly as created by blocked sock. There are strong notability concerns. I see one strong argument for keep from a clearly uninvolved editor, but there are more numerous and stronger arguments for delete, so I so judge consensus.
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions) 02:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Non-notable businessman with questionable sourcing and awards, likely UPE/potential socking. I'd have draftified, but the draft was just redirected to this article. StarMississippi 03:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Seems to the lots of passing mentions, profiles, several interviews and PR pieces that don't pass
WP:SIGCOV for this ecoprenaur, whatever that is. Could be early days right, but at the moment it doesn't pass
WP:BASIC. scope_creepTalk 14:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Despite the fact that this piece is contentious, the inventor seems notable. Isn't.
JackFrost987 (
talk) 09:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep I have updated the article with cites. The inventor is notable
Robin499 (
talk) 13:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)reply
can you please let us know how you found this article? Thank you! StarMississippi 14:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Redraft-ify, for glaring errors such as spelling: Nigeria as "nigeria", the United States as "united States". This needs clean up and isn't ready for prime-time yet. The person seems notable, but this reads like a resume/CV and has errors. The source links have no capitalization and there are grammatical mistakes throughout. Please do not take it from the draft state before it's ready to be published.
Oaktree b (
talk) 03:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Did some clean-up and adjustment on the article as highlighted by Oaktree. He is notable.
Epcc12345 (
talk) 21:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)reply
In the first block of references, there is no secondary sources. There is a load of PR, a small X of Y article, which is also ref 8, two interviews, a press-release. There is nothing here, at all, that indicates notability. scope_creepTalk 12:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. I don't see consensus here and I have doubts about low edit accounts that show up at random AFDs to comment. I don't discount their opinions but, like I said, I have my doubts. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment There seems to be something seriously wrong with this Afd. Oaktree b is probably the closest in what is needed. I think this is the 3rd article in this series. I passed one out of Afc about a month ago, and it took about 8 goes looking at the references over a month to do it, and still wasn't sure, 100% sure its notable. I'll will examine the first blocks in a ref review when I come back shortly. scope_creepTalk 18:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)reply
The editor has only 70 edits with two articles. It well structured, formatted and laid out, and supposedely referenced. It is quite odd. scope_creepTalk 09:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment Lets examine the references:
Ref 1
[1] Meet these folk. This a paid for PR it looks like with a profile attached to each.
Ref 2
[2] This is an interview. It does states he has won several awards but they are mostly growth awards for business, essentially industry awards.
These references are typical of entrepreneur coverage for a UPE article. There is a several interviews which are
WP:PRIMARY, the PR coverage is non-rs as its not reliable and the profiles are non-rs as well as they not significant. It fails
WP:SIGCOV. There is not a single
WP:SECONDARY source amongst this first block, where is should be. scope_creepTalk 09:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment While the articles you list as "PR" are laudatory, there is no evidence that they are paid promotion. We should be careful and distinguish between those sources where we have proof that are actual press releases and those that use promotional language. In this case, I read the promotional language as praise and an expression of pride. If you have proof of actual press releases or paid content, then those sources could be eliminated.
Lamona (
talk) 18:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Changing vote due to COI and socking concerns.
Shawn Teller (
talk) 01:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete as G5, content created by a sockblocked editor. Very clear evidence of other sock activity around this process, as mentioned by other contributors. If somebody wants to draftify these sources, they should do so soon, because despite various keep assertions, this page is clearly the COI workproduct of a blocked sock of a blocked sockmaster.
BusterD (
talk) 23:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination.
BoyTheKingCanDance (
talk) 02:18, 16 February 2023 (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.