Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendan Paddick


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 05:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Brendan Paddick

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Basically, a vanity piece brought to you by the subject, and I do wonder who that most recent IP editor was. You'll find a few references that might be acceptable (from Jamaica's Gleaner and Observer--though I do have doubts about there editorial independence), but solid references, especially those that can verify basic facts here, are hard to come by. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 04:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 04:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 04:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. While conflict of interest isn't a deletion rationale in and of itself, in this instance its effect has been to make a royal hash of the article. The tone is a blatant POV mess (let's just say that the talk page admission that the article has been edited by the subject's own company's own marketing department surprised me about as much as the sun rising in the east), nearly all of the referencing is primary sourced crap, and the article will need such a massive quality overhaul to be brought back into line with Wikipedia's actual content standards that starting over from scratch would be infinitely preferable to attempting to fix this version. No prejudice against recreation of a good version in the future if better sourcing can be found and a more properly neutral and encyclopedic writing tone can be maintained — but this version desperately needs to be given the nuke and pave treatment. Bearcat (talk) 08:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak delete While I can't get enthusiastic about keeping this article in WP, I do see a few references that lend some credibility to the subject. #14 (a Canadian business award, although no longer being given - "on hiatus") #23 Ernst & Young #25 An alumnus award. The other articles mainly attest to the fact that he has a thriving telecom business. Successful, yes. But is that enough to be notable? I don't think so. LaMona (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2014 (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.