Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Scher

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. Michig (talk) 09:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Scher[edit]

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

Mostly uncited vanity article about someone who doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It can be improved I thinkJacob20162016 (talk) 11:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article's creator, whose username indicates that there is a close affiliation, has also created an article about his gaming team which originally contained a lot of exaggerated praise and promotional text. I found that the same user had actually inserted factual errors into other Wikipedia articles to make it look as if his team had won a couple of championship titles. Searching for strings in David Scher, it becomes apparent that the article is largely a copy of other Wikipedia articles such as OpTic Gaming, with some names changed. I would in fact recommend a speedy delete as A7/hoax. --bonadea contributions talk 13:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I fixed it, by removing the parts that were a blatant hoax. --bonadea contributions talk 13:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vanity. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Was eligible for WP:BLPPROD and probably could be speedied too. —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 15:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete delete delete - quite sneaky of creator to do that. Fails CSD#A7 and CSD#A11. DrStrauss talk 18:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I went back to see the old version before Bonadea's removal of info and the article's previous 2 sources didn't even cover the subject. This is clearly a vanity article and the cherry on top was the use of <big> tags used to blow up the lede. No offense intended to the author/subject of the article, but I find no coverage of the subject in any RSes. -Thibbs (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2017 (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.