Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fabian Westerheide

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. Notwithstanding details of whether WP:NOTSPAM applies, consensus has emerged that the subject is simply not notable, per WP:GNG Jujutacular (talk) 04:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fabian Westerheide

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

Spam article created by a CU confirmed UPE sock. I had tagged as G5, but when going back through, noticed it had some substantial content added by a good faith user. Still spam and a TOU violation, so it should be deleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The first reference is decent, but none of the rest provide any sort of significant coverage. They're brief mentions, quotations, interviews, primary-sources, etc. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What about the Wired article? FloridaArmy (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are two Wired articles referenced. One is behind a paywall and appears to be an interview (which would be a primary source and doesn't count toward notability), and the other gives just a brief mention to the subject. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a BLP that lack coverage in reliable sources. CEO of a nn company is almost always a GNG fail, and there's nothing else better. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC) K.e.coffman (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not significant independent coverage for stand alone article. Fails WP:GNG. Kierzek (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The reference cited here. Additionally, I don't think the nom has cited how the article doesn't meet notability even if borderline. Granted there may be a sock behind it but the subject in its scrutiny meets GNG as per my interpretation of WP:GNG TalkMe (talk) 08:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:N is the guideline under which WP:GNG is but one part. Passing the GNG is not in itself sufficient to be considered notable under that guideline. A subject must pass the GNG or an SNG and the article must pass WP:NOT to have a presumption of inclusion per WP:N. The GNG cannot overrule the guideline in which it is contained. This article fails WP:NOTSPAM as a promotional commissioned work by a CU confirmed UPE farm. The question of notability is not important. Also, as your userpage says you edit for pay at all times, I think it is fair to question whether or not you can be objective in this case, and whether or not you were paid for this vote. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2017 (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.