Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evan Brunell

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. Wizardman 03:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Brunell[edit]

Article about Evan Brunell was created by him; see . Represents a conflict of interest. In addition, sole possible reliable source is Telegram and Gazette, while other sources are directly related to him (his blog, his website, and his LinkedIn profile). Also has tried to create Most Valuable Network, but it was deleted as advertising. Basically, the figure does not seem to establish notability. Goosfraba (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this looks like vanity to me.--Lulzislife (talk) 01:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some other references (a different article from the Worcester Telegram & Gazette) and a column from the Edmonton Sun. I think that there is enough coverage of him in reliable sources that notability is proven. --Eastmain (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Even with the added sources it seems the much of the information in the article cannot be substantiated with reliable sources, also, Google news turns up no results, as far as i can tell, but its hard to tell as there is a journalist with the same name that keeps appearing when I try to search. Atyndall93 | talk 03:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Independent, reliable coverage does not seem to exist, even when searching for "Most Valuable Network" (and subtracting mvn.com). (I would also note that COI is not a reason to delete an article.) Frank | talk 14:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. You said it Dad (talk) 03:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is EvanAtMVN, and just want to respond to a couple people. For one, I have no problem with anyone editing my article, I apologize if you think it's a conflict of interest. I would argue, however, that I am certainly well known in the sports internet world. FOX, USA Today, ESPN, they have all linked to MVN. I did also try to create Most Valuable Network and it SHOULD be on Wikipedia but I haven't figured out how to make it not seem like advertising -- I have no interest in advertising. I have a lot of respect for Wikipedia and use it daily. Wikipedia is not an advertising tool, it is an informational tool. And to Atyndall who says "it is hard to tell as there is a journalist with the same name that keeps appearing when I try to search" ... that's me, Atyndall. I'm that journalist. Oh, and whoever turned up zero results at Google News: Please try again, myself personally and Most Valuable Network show up. Another link confirming myself: http://www.bcbr.com/article.asp?id=94466 Thanks, all.[[Evanatmvn (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)])[reply]
It's not "your" article, and there's nothing to apologize for with a conflict of interest...but it should be noted. You clearly have one, since you're the subject of the article; it's not a matter of opinion. (But, as I noted above, it's also not a reason to delete an article.) However, being quoted in an article does not confer notability. Frank | talk 02:48, 23 July 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.