Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Manville

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Manville[edit]

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

According to WP:DEL-REASON, blatant spam and advertising is grounds for deletion. The Scott Manville article has been tagged as "appears to be written like an advertisement" since its creation earlier this year. It's also clear that the creator of the article is Scott Manville himself. The creator of this article User talk:KiraCasts's only work here at Wikipedia was to create the "Scott Manville" article and the article of this organization of Scott Manville's, that being Television Writers Vault. Both the Scott Manville and Television Writer's Vault articles have been tagged as "appearing to look like advertisements" since their creation. Kira Casts sole work here at Wikipedia was to create these two articles that appear to be advertisements. I suspect also that this user is User talk:Smanville and User:72.130.156.32. And I know this may be irrelevant to the deletion policy, but this company has been blasted up and down across the Web as a site to avoid for being a scam, such as here [1] and here [2] and here [3] among slews of more negative reviews I've found on the company. Moreover, most of the sources on these articles use primary sources and sources that state nothing about the TV Writer's Vault and Scott Manville, such as this primary source at the TV Writer's Vault article used multiple times [4], this Syfy source at the TV Writer's Vault article which states nothing about the company [5], and this source that states nothing about the company [6]. I wouldn't bother clicking on the primary sources in question though as the user is likely just looking to get more hits on his website through Wikipedia. AmericanDad86 (talk) 03:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC) AmericanDad86 (talk) 04:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There might conceivably be enough information for an article on the company, but not on both. Trying to make separate articles for the company and the individual is characteristic of incompetent PR efforts at WP. There would be much greater likelihood of success in a combination article. I once felt that we should help people with this, by combining the articles for them and improving it as much as possible. I no longer do, because there's just too much of it--and because such efforts at being rational tend to ben very strongly resisted. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 1 January 2014 (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.