Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Portaro


 * 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. Michig (talk) 08:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Brett Portaro

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:ANYBIO. This article was originally filled with SEO/spam external links many of which did not have any relation to claims. The subject does not appear to be notable and the page looks to be nothing but a promotional vehicle. After going through the inline external links there was one, poor, link to a "List of Geniuses" site that you pay to be listed on. J bh Talk  05:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  J bh  Talk  05:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions.  J bh  Talk  05:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete The one "pay to play" directory listing reference in the article is worthless. In effect, this is an unreferenced biography of a living person, which is contrary to policy. Maybe he is a genius. I do not know one way or the other, but that is not a claim of notability in itself. I did a good faith search for reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to this person, and came up with nothing. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * delete blatantly promotional unsourced BLP - David Gerard (talk) 09:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Haven't found any substantial coverage. The one article that turned up was this, which is just a passing mention. 2602:306:3A29:9B90:1C2C:935B:D0B7:DEBC (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- unsourced spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * SNOW Delete as not only unsourced, but also seriously advertorial with this essentially only existing as a job listing and there's all the signs to show it, there's nothing here at all to suggest there's significance for his own convincing article, let alone especially not the substance. SwisterTwister   talk  06:34, 7 October 2016 (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.