Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kobi Karp

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 keep. John254 05:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kobi Karp[edit]

POV self-promotion that lacks reliable third-party references. Biruitorul (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page because the same reasons apply and it's closely related to the main page:[reply]

Keep only if eviscerated of all of the promotional fluff. Appears to have been created by a user whose only purpose is to seek publicity for the subject. But the subject does seem to be notable. Kablammo (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both: Per Kablammo comment. Needs work, and I've tagged them both for sources, and Kablammo has tagged for other improvements. Definitely seems notable though. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify: I have no prejudice against recreating these articles in neutral form. The subject may well be notable, but the current articles are, from what I can see, far too compromised to really be salvageable. Biruitorul (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nah, they just need a lot of trimming and for the creator/COI editors to not put it back in. It's awful dreck but unsalvageable means not possible to salvage, as opposed to would take some work to salvage. --Dhartung | Talk 05:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Further clarification: yes, of course it's possible to clean up any article (at least if you use a loose definition of "clean up"). But the effort needed to clean up these two is most likely quite a bit greater than that needed to build up from scratch, hence my exhortation to delete. Biruitorul (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kobi Karp, but definitely clean up. I would merge KKAID as it is substantially a duplicate of about half the principal's article and doesn't really establish them as a wide-ranging firm with projects outside his purview. --Dhartung | Talk 05:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Its a puff piece, reads like a brochure, all smiles and sunny vistas, but does have some valid content. Add context, strip out the ad and rewrite. scope_creep (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs rewriting, but the subject seems notable. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 23:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Clean up - Independent sources are available. Not fit for deleting this entry.--NAHID 11:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kobi Karp as a notable architect and Merge Kobi Karp Architecture & Interior Design (KKAID) in to it as the latter just seems to be a practice with little to distinguish it other than its founder and namesake who is already comprehensively dealt with in his own article, much of which is merely duplicated in the KKAID piece. Kobi Karp needs a good copy edit (not least to purge of words like 'famed') but it is a worthy subject and deserves to stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nancy (talk • contribs) 15:20, 19 November 2007

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.