Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devon Walden

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Devon Walden

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Pretty obvious press release sources and refbomb case. Going by this revision: ref 6 has a disclaimer in the end. Ref 11 is marked as "Sponsored: Advertising Content". Refs 11 and 12 are clearly marked as a press release. Refs 2, 4, 5, 7 and 13 are an exact copy of Ref 14, which is written in a clearly promotional way. Ref 8 is a random YT video. Refs 3 and 9 are from his own website. This leaves us only with Refs 1 and 10. 1 is just repeating the subject, while 10 is nothing but puffery. Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable spam. ~Styyx^Talk? 17:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, United States of America, and Indiana. ~Styyx^Talk? 17:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non RS used to create the article, I don't find any otherwise either. Source analysis above shows the poor quality of the sources used. Oaktree b (talk) 01:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam. I've blocked the author for this. MER-C 11:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons mentioned above. There are no legitimate sources or outside verification or even hint of notability. I vote delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 09:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing in terms of RS. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:03, 29 September 2022 (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.