Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ref Wayne

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ref Wayne[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)

I cannot begin to fathom how or why this was accepted at AFC, taking a look at the first source leads me to believe dailytimes.pk should be blacklisted for republishing brand/press release material as legitimate journalism (and if it's not, it really leads me to doubt their credibility as journalists given the utter disaster that is that article) and the rest are similarly unreliable. Praxidicae (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination: WP: NOTLINKEDIN. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be linkedIn. It seems a perpetual struggle to make sure it is not made such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2020 (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.