Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Sichenzia

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. Sandstein 22:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Sichenzia[edit]

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

promotional and at most borderline notable. Part of a PR effort which includes the article on the firm, and an attempt to add advertising links for his various services . DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pure self-promotion. This is not LinkedIn. Quis separabit? 19:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Firstly, the article is blatant promotion. (It was created by an editor with a history of creating promotional articles, beyond all reasonable doubt an undisclosed paid editor.) Secondly, there is a total lack of evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. This is an example of bombarding an article with numerous references in the hope that will give the impression of being well-sourced, but with none of the references contributing evidence of notability. From the 20 references I took a random sample of six of them, as there is a limit to how much time I am willing to spend on analysing a spam article. The six references were as follows. An article in which Sichenzia contributes opinions about the subject of the article, not an article about him; a report published by a company for which he has worked as an editor, so it may be written by him, and in any case it is not an independent source; a dead link, but judging both from the title of the link and the context in which it is cited in the article it was (a) about his company, not about him, and (b) merely a listing of the company in a table, not substantial coverage; a YouTube video which I haven't watched, but from the context in which it is mentioned in the article it is Sichenzia giving his opinion, not coverage about him; a page behind a paywall which I haven't read, but once again from the context in which it is mentioned in the article it is Sichenzia giving his opinion, not coverage about him; a list of nineteen participants in giving a course, Sichenzia being one of the nineteen. Unless I happen by remarkable bad luck to have randomly selected six very atypical references, there is a serious lack of evidence of notability. What is more, my own search failed to find anything better. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not linked in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 19 February 2018 (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.