Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Colton

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Colton[edit]

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

a) Wikpedia is not a personal homepage or blog, b) the article was written as an autobiography by the subject himself and no considerable third party involvement has shown any initiatve to correct the issues, c) the only source linked does not support the information cited d) nor are there any other reliable sources, and finally e) the subject is not notable. Tnakiped (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC) f) There are almost no links to this article, it is an orphan. Tnakiped (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, leaning delete at this point. A quick Google news archive search shows that he did indeed work for ABC, at least, but other than a few bylines, the only things I am seeing that detail anything Colton himself is doing are self-published through sites like prweb. Of relevance, Mr. Colton's name has been going around Reddit and legal blogs due to a conflict between Reddit and "Boca News Now", a web newspaper that Colton apparently operates. That may draw people to this AFD (I only came to this after reading the Popehat story). Reso lute 22:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has not done anything that makes him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with delete. I was also sent here from the controversy but looking at this objectively there is no way Mr Colton should be allowed to use Wikipedia as a advertising tool. The page was created by him and almost the exact same information is on his user page also. I could not find anything of note about this man outside of his own self aggrandizing and self published works. The whole page is thinly veiled spam for his consulting business. The page violates Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons. Mathswiz (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Article is self-promoting and little else. IMO, the ABC work is irrelevant. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 23:18, 16 September 2013 (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.