Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Drake (investor)

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 19:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Drake (investor)[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)

This article's sources are of the lowest quality possible. They are almost exclusively press releases, opinion columns at obscure websites, and various other pieces of questionable independence who only describe the subject in exaggerated, hyperbolic terms. There's also a lot of content promoting the subject's business on the page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 05:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage used, everything is sourced; language is plain and not flowery (though promotionalism is not an argument for deletion anyways). An SPA tried to post this debate a few times before a similarly named editor swooped in to complete the nomination, which makes this feel strangely set up; especially considering the only other vote here is an SPA focusing only on deleting and editing targets in the crypto industry or similar articles, that has no personal rationale to vote and says “per nom” which is advanced wiki-speak an SPA with no experience would know or use. Develofix (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear on what you're suggesting by calling this nomination a "setup." I was not aware of the history of this article, though, in my opinion, it does not meet WP:GNG, which you failed to address. The "plain langauge" is really a series of claims about the subject's company for which the sources are either paid releases, self-published, or seem to suffer from circular reporting. And blatant promotionalism, or "advertising," does in fact fall under WP:DEL14. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Puffery and pay-for-coverage non-RSes - David Gerard (talk) 09:06, 30 October 2018 (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.