Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Sharpe

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Sharpe

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

Article seems extremely promotional. I attempted to help the creator by formatting the page when it was only a few sentences long and now she's gone in and added a lot of promotional sounding content. I told her it was a conflict of interest since she's his P.A but she claims someone from "Marketswiki" wrote it for her. I'd like to get other users opinions on whether it should be kept or deleted. MaxineBangs (talk) 06:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I would like to ask which parts are considered promotional, so that they can be altered if voted by others. Yes I am the gentleman's PA. I made this clear from the beginning.

Secondly, I did not request for any of the information to be created. The content that is on the current page was created by an editor from Marketswiki which is an online encyclopedia similar to Wikipedia. I transferred the information, thinking it would also be accepted as all references are provided and I did not create it. I believe the page should not be deleted because the references in relation to Wayne Sharpe, display the credibility of him as a person and the content on this page. If someone else additionally believes the content is promotional, based on his credibility as a person the page should remain and just be altered to what they believe is non promotional. Martina_CTX (talk)

So you're saying you copy and pasted it from another website? Please see WP:G12. All content on Wikipedia must be original. MaxineBangs (talk) 08:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if it weren't a copyright violation due to copying from Marketswiki, the references do not meet notability standards. Marketswiki is a pay to play promotional wiki run by a single person, and I could not find any rights statement regarding rights held on its content (thus copyright is assumed). It should not be considered a reliable source as a reference, and obviously should not be copied from. LaMona (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Marketswiki seems to be under the GFDL, so the copyright thing might not be a huge drama, although attribution would probably be required. With that said, I'm not sure that Sharpe meets the WP:GNG. Apparently quite successful, and probably a nice person, but there doesn't seem to be the independent secondary coverage we'd want to demonstrate that he was notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as an exclusively and unambiguously promotional article. I'm inclined to think that the subject of the article is not notable: the sources in the article just don't stack up against the GNG. But I could be persuaded on that point if a neutral article were to be created in place of this one. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article is unambiguously promotional. AlanS^talk 23:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and is Promotional in addition to copyright concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:17, 5 September 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.