Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robb Alvey

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. Courcelles 02:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robb Alvey[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Blatant vanity/spam--how did it last this long (it's been on here since 2009)? Blueboy 96 02:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant use of page for self-promotion. Individual does not have influence outside of his own interests.

Keep - it may be vanity, but based on the reliable sources, such as Allbusiness and the News-press, he passes the general notability guidelines. His interests and business - roller coasters and video gaming - are big deals. There are many other possible sources that could have been found easily at Google. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violates WP:BIO and does not meet WP:GNG.

First, subject does not satisfy the 'significant coverage' requirement. While there are articles that discuss him, many do so tangentially or in context of the video game companies he's working for. His notability as an employee/spokesperson of a notable company fails my interpretation of WP:BIO#Invalid Criteria.
Second, one or two sentence mentions do little to convince me that "sources address the subject directly in detail".
Finally, several of the listed sources are forums or personal pages and violate WP:RS. Unlike Bearian, I fail to see any reliable and third-party sources in the Google search he linked. All of them either are not reliable, or not independent of the subject. Most are both. DubiousIrony ^yell 00:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete He is no more notable than any other self-promoting person, articles on whom which have been deleted in their masses from Wikipedia. He is not a notable figure as per Wikipedia guidlines and I suspect the article has been self-promoted or even self-created. Tom Green (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, All reasons cited above. Looking at the edit history and doing some investigation, many of the editors are coaster-related, many of which are of similar usernames found on his Theme Park Review website. --Maqattaq (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2011 (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.