Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy Geissler

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 13:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Geissler

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

This seems to be a cross between a poorly referenced biography and a promotional article for the subject's business interests. There may be some notability in here somewhere but Digital Angel already has an article and that probably covers it. DanielRigal (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clearly promotional interests.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overly promotional. LibStar (talk) 06:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think the article is advertising sounding or self-promotional sounding. Geissler has done all those things. He has numerous patents, and inventions. That's not self-promotional; doing some basic research reveals that Geissler founded Digital Angel and several other companies, and later sold them. This alone would make him deserving of his own article, and makes a merge into the Digital Angel article somewhat inappropriate (this was a company he sold). BoogieTime (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC) — BoogieTime (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thanks sockpuppet! Since this is your only edit, we can discount you from the consensus. This article was created by User:1weezie23, a sockpuppet of indef-blocked User:Smkovalinsky as a paid article writing. The efforts were done just prior to the sell of Digital Angel as promotional. Since Kovalinsky insists on calling us Wikipedians morons, etc. and states that she will persist as she pleases, knowingly violating policies for money....very ugly behavior...this article needs to be canned.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Click the Google news archive search please. The first result is about him, giving ample coverage, and I'm sure other results are about him as well. And if you think its overly promotional, then work on the article, adding a tag about that even. AFD is not cleanup. Dream Focus 19:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD IS Cleanup in this case.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the principle that AfD is not for cleanup. I would not have started the AfD if I didn't believe that deletion was the right outcome and that cleanup was not possible. I probably worded the nomination quite badly, by not mentioning notability and verifiability as concerns. Deletion is to be decided on the notability and suitability of the topic. The possibility of it being a commissioned piece of COI is not pertinent to deletion, although it is a good reason to gut the article down to a neutral stub if it is kept. Dream Focus's argument is valid. I just think that he is mistaken in believing that there is material here for a verifiable biography sourced from reliable independent sources. The USA Today article is about Digital Angel's products. It offers little of use in a biography. What we would need is coverage of him as a person, focussing on his career as a serial entrepreneur, not just coverage of his companies where he is covered in passing. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He probably has done all that. However, do we need such repetitive detail and such an unreadable article? It does look promotional in places, perhaps not surprising considering its origin. Could I suggest (without volunteering) that the article would well cut down to basics (which would not please Ms Kovalinsky or whoever she is) which would give an article about someone who does seem to have a certain notability. (Don't tell him I said this, but MichaelQSchmidt is rather good at that sort of thing...) Peridon (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G5: lack of notability/significant third party sourcing (especially beyond the business side, which already has its own article), lack of focus (article jumps from person to business interests), promotional tone. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upgraded to 'Speedy', per Artemis84. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If BereanHunter knows that BoogieTime is a sock for certain, s/he should have blocked BoogieTime immediately and removed h/er vote. My suspicion is, however, that Bhunter is playing some sort of political game here that we're unaware of. I don't think s/he should make this kind of blanket accusation without some clear evidence. Nevertheless, my vote is to
Delete regardless. 1weezie23 is a known sock. Therefore, this article shouldn't have been created in the first place; it is fruit from a poisoned tree. Sockpuppets can, within reason, have their entire edit reverted or deleted, as a matter of course. Although I do believe the subject is notable enough to warrant a standalone article. It seems unfair that the subject should be penalized simply because the writer was/is a sock. My recommendation is that someone (and I'm not volunteering) move the article to their userspace and clean it up. Artemis84 (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- Artemis is a meatpuppet of Smkovalinsky and he is all around the articles crafted by gnosisarts. He is promoting their search tool (M0rpheme) on his user page (only person on Wikipedia to do so). I recorded an accusation about you last night here...and then, out of the clear blue, without having edited since July, you appear at AfD to try to save your client and worker. You are associated with gnosisarts, yes? Owner? (yes) Anyone looking at your contribs will see the articles that were the work of S. Kovalinsky or her socks. I see you editing the article, Still I Rise: A Graphic History of African Americans, which was commissioned at gnosis. I see you tried to save an article written by User:34pin6, another Kovalinsky sock, here. You also appear at Keithley Instruments where Kovalinsky's sock, User:Dcsm23 edited for money. You also tried to save an article written by same sock here and now have it as a draft in your userspace. The high coincidence of you appearing on their articles with no more contribs than you have is implausible.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^chat 20:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional article created by a paid editor. We should not be encouraging editors who are creating articles for money by keeping these articles around. All of the references about this subject are primarily about Digital Angel and its products, not about Geissler. SnottyWong ^chat 20:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and block all sock puppets. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sunflowergal34 Eric Bryant, Director, Gnosis Arts Multimedia Communications LLC Sunflowergal34 (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2010 (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.