Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Piilani

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. --MCB (talk) 08:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Piilani[edit]

Speedy deletion overturned at DRV. The article does contain some claim of importance, but it seems to fall short on sourcing. The sources are industry-related and do not seem to be independent, also they do not seem to contain non-trivial information on this person, but merely list him. A broader news search turns up nothing on this guy. So I'd say Delete unless better sourcing is located. W.marsh 01:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable per WP:BIO and unverifiable per WP:V. Mh29255 (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep He's the CEO of Unified Technologies Group, which should have an article as one of the signif internet companies--not the most signif, but signif. enough. His role in this and several other earlier developments is sufficient. Does need some real sourcing, and spam removal. DGG (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "one of the signif internet companies" has [43 unique Google hits] and [no Google news hits at all], even archive ones? I guess we all have our own definitions of significance, but good luck finding any reliable sourcing on that one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. This also appears to be a self-promotion/WP:COI case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:52, 31 January 2008 (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.