Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Despres (futurist)

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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Despres (futurist)[edit]

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

Subject is non-notable. References consist of two defunct websites formerly run by the subject, membership of a mailing list and an entry on a wiki. CSD templates repeatedly removed. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Unambiguous spam. Shouldn't the CSD templates been replaced with {{hangon}} and CSD deleter notified?? --Quartermaster (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, there is no recourse against an editor who is not the original creator of an article and who removes a CSD template, even if you suspect there is a relationship between them. {{hangon}} is for the original creator to buy some time while he/she makes a case for his/her article. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (I checked and you are correct - I should have known that). Pity. It definitely opens up the possibility of "tag teaming" and sock-puppetry to keep an article artificially alive, but I can understand the logic since the alternate (NOT allowing anyone to remove CSD tags) would cause worse mischief. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the work of Jonathan Despres in the futurism field is considerable. He is a notable futurist and a well known debator in this field. More information could be provided if there would be no menace for deleting the article. --Smith2200 (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Smith2200 Are you Jonathan Despres? Your posts are remarkably similar to his, e.g. here Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Despres: Smith2200 is now confirmed and blocked. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This was already speedy deleted once under a slightly different version of the name. See here. I'm convinced that this is a case of sockpuppetry, autobiography, and totally fails WP:COI. I'd also add to my original Delete recommendation to salt as well. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the topic seems to have a heavy presence in social and write your own web sites with nothing in news. Also the version created here is a copyright violation as it did not attribute Jonathan Despres last deleted version of which it was a copy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is actually A7 material. There are no RS supporting the notability of the person. Shovon (talk) 09:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As any doubt that the csd contesting editor was a sockpuppet has been removed, I've marked the article A7. Not sure if this goes against AfD process. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 09:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend that the full term of the AFD is followed so that consensus is proved, then we can instantly delete on a G4 if it pops up again under another name, otherwise we may have to repeat this exercise again. AFD is much stronger than speedy delete. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete - a few sources but none close to reliable. Only contributions by now blocked socks of user with same name as page, so self-promotional spam.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:01, 20 September 2010 (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.