Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis B. Rosenberg

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 03:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Louis B. Rosenberg[edit]

[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)

This page was very likely created as part of a COI promotional campaign. The discussion can be found here. While Rosenberg might sound notable from the puffery on his Wikipedia page, the only secondary source about him I could find anywhere on the internet was a Daily Mail editorialized OP-ed about how the Metaverse could be "the end of the world". BrigadierG (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom rational. After looking at other articles created by the originating editor I'm convinced that these were created for promotional reasons rather than improving wikipedia. W C M_email 18:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very clear promotionalism, which is enough reason all by itself for deletion. Over-indulgent typical autobiographical content making minor avocations into major activities, and including everything the person would like you to know about themselves. Add to that borderline notability at best, and it's a vey clear delete. The only way to stop this sort of editing is to removehe articles. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and DGG's persuasive rationale. Ifnord (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, delete, since although a case might be made (for me at least) of notability, this article is quite fluffy. For example, it looks like his degrees were in mechanical engineering, which is fine, but the clear intent is to make him look like an expert in artificial intelligence, a field of computer science. Other circumstantial evidence includes single-purpose accounts, excessive use of capital letters, repetition, citing sources that do not mention the subject and corporate-style wording. the articles Immersion Corporation (written in bullets of historical present) and Unanimous A.I. also need help. One or two well-written neutral articles would be better. W Nowicki (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, reviewing history, it appears the page was stable for a long period but fluffy superfluous content was added more recently related to the various companies mentioned on the page rather than subject of the page. This material, when removed, gets to original intent. Jellostand22 (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The earlier version is still very highly promotional of his non-notable career. The added material is just a second layer of the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 01:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Jellostand22 is a brand new acccount, very suspicious. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. There are no sources about Rosenberg specifically. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly self-promotionSomeone97816 (talk) 00:04, 13 December 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.