Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin D. Weiss

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 01:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin D. Weiss

Written like an advertisement and no sourced Notability claims. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 13:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete par being the nominator, and par believing that there is not enough salvageable content in the current article to leave it around for improvement. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 13:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article looks much, MUCH better now. I have no reason to oppose the current article. Changing vote to KEEP. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Did a Google news search. Referenced as an expert: New York Sun, Wall street Journal (subscription only) and Washington Post. I stopped there on page 2 of the hits. --Dweller (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Very likely notable then, but the article needs some (major) work to get the remaining advertising out, and the notability in. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Please note "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Cheers. --Dweller (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enforce WP:BLP and delete or reduce to stub. Yes, Martin Weiss is notable for his models to estimate the reliability of banks and insurance companies. But the article reads like it was written by his agent (the article was in fact created by an SPA), and as it stands is a puff-piece and has little biographical merit. -- Fullstop (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, looks ok now. -- Fullstop (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Further to my comments above I've returned the article and added sources and removed what seemed to be left of POV, advertising and spam. With notability demonstrated there seems no reason to delete. --Dweller (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks OK now after edits since nomination ukexpat (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Looks better now than it was earlier. I see no reason to delete the article.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 03:48, 8 April 2008 (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.