Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Foltz


 * 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. WP:BLP where the (presumed) subject asks not to have an article and AFD would otherwise close as no consensus. v/r - TP 15:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Foltz

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:Notability Bazj (talk) 10:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; This person seems to keep a relatively high profile and has obviously done some fairly significant things.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 13:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, refs do not establish notability. Hairhorn (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; This person seems to keep a relatively high profile and has obviously done some fairly significant things.(adding more references now, thousands of references on google) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.25.146.85 (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear anon, I appreciate your obvious agreement with my rationale, but that doesn't mean you have to copy everything I say word-for-word. :)  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 16:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear  Master&amp;  Expert, I was trying to reply to your statement. I am just figuring out the Wiki ropes. Thank you for your reply
 * Haha, you didn't have to reply to me using the same term as I'd used (I've seen others using "dear anon" to address IP editors). And no problem. Welcome to Wikipedia! :)  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 17:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, Credible sources, unbias information, referenced in other wiki pages, multiple search engine references and news articles for reference, notable and sometimes controversial client roster. Uncommon Ground —Preceding undated comment added 17:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC).
 * Both Uncommon Ground and the IP appear to be the article creator. Hairhorn (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Appear to be" is putting it mildly. Uncommon Ground created the article, and 96.25.146.85's editing history leaves very little room for doubt that it is the same person. In the remote chance that they are not the same person, they are two people editing in support of one another in such a way as to constitute meat puppetry. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. The references all suffer from one or more of the following defects: only brief passing mention of Foltz; not an independent source; (e.g page on web site of business he works for, press release, his own web site, etc); not a reliable source (e.g. YouTube video). To answer the "keep" argument given by Master&Expert (and parroted by 96.25.146.85), neither "keep a relatively high profile" nor "has ... done some fairly significant things" comes anywhere near to relating to Wikipedia's notability criteria. As for Uncommon Ground's comment, nobody has suggested deleting because the sources are not "credible" or because the information is biased, so those are irrelevant; many totally un-notable subjects manage to get hundreds of search engine hits, we need to consider the quality of the hits, not just how many there are; how notable his clients are is totally irrelevant, as notability is not inherited by contact with notable people. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is more sourced and living person has more credible client roster, and more notably and society impact across the entire country compared to existing articles of living people in industry: see - Cory Allen, Mike Paul (businessman), Ed_Niehaus, and more than half of the people on American public relations people category (in which I am only referencing 3 total in my thesis, 1 of which is Foltz). Uncommon Ground (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Once you have said "keep" we know that is what you want, and putting three bold "keeps" is potentially misleading, so please don't do it. You are welcome to add further comments, but not to prefix them with bold "keep" notes. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I evidently failed to make it clear in my comment above, but "credible client roster" is not a reason for keeping. We need evidence that he himself is notable, and associating or working with other people who are notable does not establish that. As for the comparison with other articles, you may be right. A quick glance at the articles you linked to indicates that at least one of them is clearly not notable, and I have nominated that for deletion too. I have not yet had time to check the others thoroughly, but even if you can list 200 other articles that should be deleted, that will not mean that this one shouldn't. You may find it helpful to look at Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, particularly the section WP:OTHERSTUFF. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep &mdash; I am in favor of keeping this page. I came across it on a google alert so I came to look. I have had a google alert on Christopher Foltz since he shared the stage with Bill Rancic (the Apprentice) at the BizNet Expo. I know he is in the news right now for two things of importance. He was instrumental in the name of America's "Greenest Restaurant" which is a huge deal in the green movement world. Also, I saw him on WGN national news a few weeks ago for being the one selected to do the rename of the worlds largest underground parking system. He also garnered much attention for helping create the United Basketball Federation as the governing body of all minor league basketball in America. He also is one of the main reasons why the Premier Basketball League made a huge come back after a PR nightmare that almost out them out of business. GreenEyeWriter —Preceding undated comment added 19:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC). — GreenEyeWriter (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I have looked for news coverage of the things you say he is currently in the news for. "Christopher Foltz" "Greenest Restaurant" comes up on Google with three pages at www.christopherfoltz.com and six on Facebook, and that is all. Other similar searches produce similar results. I can find nothing about the "underground parking system" and Christopher Foltz except several pages at www.christopherfoltz.com, Facebook, and numerous press releases, PR pages, etc. A Google search for "Christopher Foltz" "United Basketball Federation" produces all of 8 hits. Some of these are on sties such as FaceBook and YouTube. Others, such as this and this are identical copies on different sites of a press release from the Premier Basketball League. They give Foltz's name as a contact for that league, and otherwise do not mention him. I can see no evidence at all that he "garnered much attention" for his work for the league. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I am the person who this article is about. I am not sure if I am doing this correctly. Someone forwarded this to me today. I do not need to have a Wikipedia article about. Especially all of these questions to notability and such. I do love that it talks of my drug addiction though. When I speak all over the country I do talk about this every time. I hope to continue to do that in hopes it inspires people to not give up. It is crazy to see that Pete McMurray does not have an article seeing how he is the top radio personality in Chicago and on the WLUP wiki page he is the only one without a wiki and definitively meets the mark for article. - Chris Foltz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.27.191.42 (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2011 (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.