Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Firmage

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Firmage[edit]

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

Article uses SPS and Primary sources such as press releases. The subject of the article has marginal notability, all of it stemming from an incident in which he claimed to have been visited by extra-terrestrials. Some notable events of over 20 years ago but nothing recent. Article needs better sources and what is notable today is not necessarily what was notable at the time the article was created. Also, the subject of the bio has used it and wikipedia to promote a scheme whereby has scams money from others under the guise that wikipedia bio makes him notable. See [1] - Tyler Riopelle, Chief Technician at Northwest Technologies, Every one at my company was lured into investing 5K apiece through a wire transfer to Utah in April of 2015. We appear to be completely scammed and have not heard anything back except to see a letter describing "Waterfall" which reads like a Ponzi scheme. We have all since filed reports with the FBI. I have not every heard until today reports about this being some free energy anti-gravity scam. Rather it was presented to us as a short term loan to be re-paid in 2 weeks maximum. A Wikipedia page exalting Joe Firmage as the technical creator of the internet and Microsoft was used to assure us that our money was going into trusted hands. There were at least four of us taken for almost 30 grand overnight. I expect more will soon surface. We are all based in Ashland Oregon. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable fringe researcher without adequate secondary source coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because person has had coverage in CNN, business week, com.com, bizjournals and some books. Person is notable enough for the article. Nominator is only using primary sources. I think he is the IP who was just blocked for BLP violations. --Bejan1 (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bejan1: Would you make publicly known any vested or conflict of interest with the subject matter. There seems to be an association and it should be clearly specified so admins can assess your PoV. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Discussion is concerned with the notability of the subject of this article, not the motive of the nominator. You need to focus on the subject of the articles notability and their misuse of Wikipedia, and no other issue. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to review these sources, problem with them is that they are over 20 years ago, and there is nothing recent that makes the subject of this article notable. Almost all of them are regurgitation of press releases with the exception of the UFO related sources, which seem to be the majority of the sources. I also have run down many of these sources and they are either no longer online or are archived. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising alone and what the Keep comment above suggests are in fact PR advertising so if that's honestly all that exists, that's damning enough for this article. There are no compromises with advertisements and it's clear this is all it ever existed for. SwisterTwister talk 22:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SwisterTwister. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PLUG, Wikipedia is not for advertisement. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:54, 20 December 2016 (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.