Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abner Mason

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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abner Mason[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:BIO or WP:NPOL. I can't find significant coverage of him in WP:Reliable sources online per WP:GNG, just passing mentions in connection with his company. He was also president for a time of a notable political association, and was one of the first gay delegates to a party convention, for which he's had brief profiles in The Advocate: [1], [2] In both cases, WP:Notability is not inherited, and he's not yet independently notable enough for a separate article. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominators arguments. Shows all the signs of being a self created and maintained vanity article. Lyndaship (talk) 08:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTFACEBOOK WP:NOTLINKEDIN Acnetj (talk) 09:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This doesn't even resemble what a Wikipedia article is supposed to look like — it consists of three sentences which barely go any further than stating that he exists, and then linkfarms one of the most egregiously long WP:ELNO-violating lists of "every web page anybody could find with his name present in it at all, without regard to whether it's a reliable source or a primary source" directories I've ever seen in a BLP. This is such blatant WP:SPIP that I'm not going to even attempt to assess whether he actually passes WP:GNG or not — even if I were to extend him the benefit of the doubt on that, this is still so bad that the blow it up and start over from scratch treatment would apply regardless of his potential notability. Bearcat (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage not even close to meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lots of articles, but none which together pass WP:GNG; agree with The Mighty Glen. SportingFlyer talk 21:42, 11 May 2018 (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.