Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Korzen

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. Tone 12:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Korzen

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article fails WP:GNG without multiple, independent sources covering the subject in detail. Article was created by Catholitics (talk · contribs), which appears to be a single-purpose account as the only edits it made were related to Korzen and the organization he founded. TM 13:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TM 13:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TM 13:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TM 13:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing stated in the article is an instant notability freebie that would entitle him to have a Wikipedia article in the absence of sufficient reliable source coverage to get him over WP:GNG, yet the article is "referenced" almost entirely to his and his organization's own self-published primary source content about themselves rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage. Bearcat (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. Article is promotional and self-published sources do not provide independent evidence to support notability. Otr500 (talk) 07:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTRESUME. This could have been forgiven, but in 2020, everybody knows we're not LinkedIn. I would not oppose a cheap redirect to Catholics United. Bearian (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2020 (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.