Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Steel

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 The consensus is to delete. Sockpuppetry concerns should be handled at WP:SPI. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Andrew Steel

Andrew Steel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This is an article about an individual created by the individual, which is clearly WP:SELFPROMOTION and contravenes WP policies. Despite being advised that there is a clear conflict of interest the editor, Andysteel123, has continued to edit the page about himself. The article fails WP:BIO and many of the references provided by Andysteel123 are either self published or taken from blog sites. Other references are simply mentions in passing. This is a clear case of an individual trying to promote himself by creating his own WP page. It should be noted that there's no inherited notability simply because he founded a company (which only marginally survived an AfD). The PROD notice on the article was removed by a single edit editor - possibly a sock puppet. Dan arndt (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC) Dan arndt (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable sailor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per nom David.moreno72 00:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
• Delete Absolutely nothing shows that the subject is independently notable. I'm actually having doubts if the foundation is notable as well. That combined with the clear ducky behaviour shows that the article is being used solely for promotion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
• Possible sock User:Andysteel123 created the article while the PROD was removed by another editor User:Mythwaugh (whose only edit was removing the PROD). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete promotional article about non-notable subject. Lepricavark (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
• Delete The article does not provide Reliable Sources to meet the General Notability Guideline. BoyRD (talk) 04:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
• Delete -- no indication of notability and searches do not turn up anything. Dodgy editing behaviour suggest this article is being used entirely for self promotion. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

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.