Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Sera

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Sera[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)

Basically thinly veiled advertising for a non-notable person. The references are all local news feel good stories and paid advertising promotion companies. For instance the About Us on Business Daily Media is "We thrive on providing publicity and buzz for people and business operators. Tell your story through us." It's all just self promotional advertising for non-notable businesses. Created by a user with a long history of promotion for non-notable people they know on Wikipedia. Minor mentions, passing name dropping in the references, nothing solid or particularly reliable. Canterbury Tail talk 21:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Purely self-promotional. The Channel 10 and 9 videos contain barely the smallest passing mention; the Channel 7 News article is entirely promotional (including the use of affiliate links). Nothing of substance to distinguish the subject from any average businessman and falls well short of establishing the notability required for WP:ANYBIO or WP:NCORP. Cabrils (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. On the surface, this appears to be a barely adequate article, but on further inspection the notability and in-depth, reliable secondary sourcing aren't there in any way. I didn't go through all the sources on the article and only briefly looked for other sources, but it's obvious enough the article subject is not notable or encyclopedic in the general sense nor fits WP:GNG criteria. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 01:23, 23 December 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.