Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Bentley (entrepreneur)


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Bentley (entrepreneur)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

What was the name of that guy who was accepting payment in exchange for a Wikipedia article, later banned by Jimbo Wales? This looks like one of those promotional/peacocky articles about a non-notable that he would have written. Or some other ad agency. JBsupreme (talk) 07:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  08:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 *  Comment: all the refs look like PR- "aboutus" page, the "prnewswire" site is where companies make press releases, "secinfo" while maybe candid encyclodedic material in some cases would be like a listing in the yellow pages unless perhaps cited in an unaffiliated filing (" our company considers the BioSubject to be a notable competitor" or etc). There is nothing AFAIK wrong with paid well-written pieces but it does take forever to remove puffery and peacock feathers and create a stark, balanced ( aka useful), fact based description. I guess this is what bothers me about the Darwin- there is a tendency for people to want to describe him as being politically correct while being unable to find any good points about Hitler. The personal benefit of writing an encyclopedia entry, or supporting science, is suspending opinion long enough to give yourself and honest shot at analysing data so you can later have better ( more agreement with reality ) opinions. I'm nerdseeksblonde and I endorsed this message LOL Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 09:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete per clear case of WP:SPAM/WP:NOTADVERTISING - Epson291 (talk) 10:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete blatant self promotion, fails WP:BIO, limited third party coverage . LibStar (talk) 10:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete that's what they said when I was new to Wikipedia and put up my blatant self-promotion page too (and it's gone, of course!)--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2009 (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.