Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris mentillo


 * 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Chris mentillo

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Biographical article about a music executive/minister/entrepreneur. The article has a lot of references but I am not certain whether any of them are independent reliable sources which are relevant to the subject. The article had been up for speedy deletion (which was contested), but I thought it would be useful to bring this to AfD so the claims in the article and its sources could be scrutinized by the community. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless better sources can be found. Most of the sources I've found are from user-generated content only. The first page of Google hits is littered with Facebook, blog entries signed "Chris Mentillo Productions", autobiographical user-posted articles, etc. No Gnews hits. My talk page exchange with the creator of this article also raises a lot of red flags: when challenged on some of the biographical claims, the editor simply removed them, rather than try to back them up. Hairhorn (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete because this era of every person making a vanity page is terrible, just terrible. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. References for the internet footnotes include social and business networking sites (e.g., Facebook and Linked In), as well as a plethora of press releases.  A bit of peacockery in the article - article calls him a "mover & shaker".  Which I'd be, if I drank enough coffee.  I smell a conflict of interest - original author has only contributed to this article and that's it, and is a new account. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 22:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete article because although there may be some apparent discrepancies with this article, it should be left for further scrutiny to the public, so that the author, in due time can gather more resources to better add to the quality of the article. The living person's biblical information regarding his ministry work, is properly illustrated through adequate resources pertaining to the Attorney Generals Office --State of Nevada (a very reliable, notable, and worthy resource for inclusion). This only adds to my previous additional justification for perhaps why this article should be held without deletion, and at the very least, be held much longer for further scrutiny, for public oppinion. Let the records also indicate; to the public herein, that this article, which is currently be contested, is no other than a stub, and not a mainstream entry for inclusion, which means that this article should be giving ample amount of time to be placed for quality expansion. Therefore, these differential guidelines should then properly, and professionally apply herein. --Dr25 (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC) (sock of article creator)
 * Although the investigation indicates that Drwebnow is indeed another identity used by the article creator, I don't agree that his recommendation had to be struck. He didn't try to use two different identities in this same AfD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete blatant hoax as references do not mention subject of article. Mm40 (talk) 22:25, 10 October 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.