Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Charter

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. Davewild (talk) 06:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Charter

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very possible SPAM or hoax. Article contains no sourced content, makes claims regarding an oral cancer test which is linked to commercial promotional site (part constructed). Similarly strong claims re past business experience of subject. Article was created by, and is largely edited by, what appears to have been since 2006 a single purpose account [1]. Delete.Pincrete (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think it is a hoax. There appears to be some evidence for his existence such as this 8-K form and this TEDx talk, but neither of those sources establish notability. Nothing I found could reliably verify the claims made in this article or assert his notability, so delete per WP:BIO. A note to other participants, because this article is nearly nine years old, there is a very high amount of information sourced from Wikipedia out there so beware of circular referencing. Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't doubting his existence. I meant that claims about achievements are possibly hoax. As you note, this article seems to have been here for a long time. I found it by accident as a result of trying to find out about 'Paysafe' internet payment technology, which the article claims Dennis Charter invented. 'Paysafe', turns out to be the name of a genuine 'smart' payment card in the Phillipines, but was also used as the name for a payment service used by a major internet scam. I have no reason to connect Dennis Charter to that scam of course, but there seems to be little reason to connect him to any genuine online payment technologies.Pincrete (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I believe a major factor why this article was started was partially for promotion as this is the first edit and at some point had several links to various people here but then actually added better references here. The bottom line though is that there isn't significant and notable coverage about him and all my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) only found a few results from Books. SwisterTwister talk 22:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Present refs are all either dead or extremely dubious in supporting the article's assertions.Pincrete (talk) 12:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 08:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep despite the presence of numerous unsupported claims in the article - many are still left in – the subject is notable in his business dealings. This includes a criminal conviction for "improperly diverting a cheque for $402,500." and nine months jail time. I have expanded the article and supplied references for some information, someone else should go through and trim back more of the unsupported contentious claims and the NPoV description of much of his career.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still not notable! Shaidar cuebiyar's additions are here:[2]. … … ps I have checked out Shaidar cuebiyar's additions because of the BLP implications, they appear to be RS, however I can't help feeling that they only 'muddy the water'. The man has had a couple of 'less-than-successful' business ventures and a criminal conviction, this doesn't constitute significant notoriety, let alone notability. Pincrete (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Pincrete (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This guy is a minor, non-notable figure in music promotion who tried to get into pharmaceuticals. The article is riddled with unreferenced name-dropping. Yes, he served some jail time on a check scam, but if that made someone notable, Wikipedia editors would hang around jails at discharge time, to write biographies of two bit crooks. We don't. Fails WP:PERP. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A wheeler-dealer who wheeled and dealed but whose jumps from industry to industry without qualification other than the prospect of money suggests worlds about the motivations of the article. Fails as promo and as an individual who has not proven to be independently notable. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2015 (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.