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.
✗plicit 23:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Lack of reliable independent secondary sources under
WP:GNG and does not appear to meet criteria under
WP:BIO. Article seems fairly promotional in tone as well. No hits on Google News. Citations in article do not seem reliable and do not indicate notability to me. Sasquatcht|
c 01:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Thanks for highlighting that this page needs significant revision. It seems a number of the ref links are no longer valid and additional citations are needed. I will work on revising it in the coming weeks. Westmoquette
It's not so much the links are no longer valid, but none of them are
reliable sources which would indicate notability in the first place. Sasquatcht|
c 18:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:SIGCOV. I don't see much more than spam here. In 2007, this could have been excused, but in 2021, this is untenable.
Bearian (
talk) 20:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 04:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete lacks reliable sources, heavily edited by an editor with a fairly clear undisclosed COI
Dexxtrall (
talk) 08:40, 16 July 2021 (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.