Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dana L. French


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 23:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Dana L. French

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

Autobiography that fails to assert notability: none of the sources are third-party reliable ones about the subject, merely generic link directories pointing to his company, and articles by him. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, when searching online for Dana L French the only results I can find are his self-published online resume and the wikipedia entry. There are no third party sources and it is no more than self-promotion. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Quite the contrary, many of the sources are third-party reliable sources, including IBM Developerworks, AIX Update Journal, Chris F.A. Johnson's book on shell scripting, the Unix Guru Universe, third-party development project based on kshSQL at Freshmeat, TechTarget and others. Just because you don't understand the source, doesn't mean it's not reliable. Dfrench (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but looking at for example IBM Developerworks, it seems as if anyone could register, login and submit their own organization. To quote

'''Sign in to:

* Create and update your solutions * Submit a customer experience * Add a solution to an industry view in the Business Partner Application Showcase * Nominate your solution for an IBM technical validation or speciality * View response cards '''

that would seem to be a self-published source

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree - IBM Developerworks appears to have a low bar to entry, and is not peer reviewed (readers can click on a button to give feedback, but there's no evidence that prevents developers from getting articles published). Tedickey (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete - no third party references, non notable, self promotion.  Teapot  george Talk  16:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete - repeated requests for reliable sources have not been successful Tedickey (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete - The article lacks third-party reliable sources that have commented on French's work. EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete Self promotional and lacking third party sources. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete self promotional, no third party coverage. -Drdisque (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete as a WP:COI-ridden piece of self-promotion. No demonstrable notability per WP:BIO. Eusebeus (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete as the most persistent piece of WP:COI I've ever seen. Lacks verifiability and fails WP:BIO despite the author/subject's ongoing attempts to subvert the process. Trash it. Taroaldo (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete per the WP:RS issues noted above, exacerbated by the WP:COI and WP:OWN issues by its most frequent editor, and apparent creator, the subject of the article. TJRC (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete Article seems like an infomercial, not to mention everything seems to be created by the subject. MMAJunkie250 (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

 Keep Delete Valuable repository on the history of early '60s Oklahoma youth hang gliding. I'm sorry, did I type that out loud?--NapoliRoma (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * that would be around 1974, rather than early '60s (using the information in the topic, of course) Tedickey (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete and salt - blatant spammy self-advert. Do I smell WP:SNOW? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete We just had this deleted under a different name a few days ago. And block User talk:Dfrench for clear spamming and a clumsy attempt to get around the previous delete. DreamGuy (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete and salt - it appears that articles with this name (including Dana French and Dana french) have been deleted on 1 January 2006, 2 January 2006, 28 February 2006, 1 March 2006, 6 April 2008, and 10 March 2009. After several years and 6 deletions, I don't believe that he's gotten any more notable. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 01:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong, Speedy Delete with a pinch of Salt, and pronto per WP:SNOW. Serious WP:NPOV issues and obvious WP:COI. Also notability is unverifiable. Given the history of deletions I think a block may be in order as well. -- samj in out 18:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete and for goodness sake Salt this and prior names. Suggest blocking if it's reposted yet again.  There's a point where vanity and self-promotion stops and vandalism and disruption begins, and this user has clearly crossed the line. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:57, 21 March 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.