Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Desta


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 22:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Desta

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Can find no independent reliable sources for this person. Ridernyc (talk) 08:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The person has contributed in the creation of Fundable and references have been given. Thanks, NickAang (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Note Article creator has admitted to what appears to be paid promotional editing here. Ridernyc (talk) 09:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Fundable - no evidence of any independent notability. GiantSnowman 10:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect To Fundable. Not independently notable: the references are poor. CrunchBase is "A wiki-style database of Web 2.0 people" (TechCrunch). Experts Column is also an anyone-can-edit thing. Others don't have detailed info. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please, stop lying about me. I have never admitted of getting paid for creating articles that do not meet the wikipedia policy. Please, check here. And thanks for the review. If the sources are not independent then please, do the right thing. Thanks, NickAang (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yet almost none of your articles meet Wikipedia policy and you admit you were paid to create them. Again please stop all the distractions and provide reliable independent sources if you have them.  Everything else is just disruption. You have already tried reporting me at page protection, already left a somewhat rude message on my talk page telling me to stop, the one thing you have not done is provide a single reliable source for the half dozen or so articles that have been put up for deletion.  I offered advice about going to articles for creation which you rudely turned down claiming all the articles you created are notable.  So once again I ask please provide sources that establish notability. Ridernyc (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We can add reporting me to AIV for vandalism to the list of disruptions. Ridernyc (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't turned your advise rather I thanked you for it and from the beginning you've tried stalking me without giving advises. I was in collage and away from my PC. If the articles do not meet the wikipedia policy then delete them. Again, I've never willingly created articles that do not meet wikipedia policy for my own profit. Thanks, NickAang (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * . Moving on.  Any sources yet? Ridernyc (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * if you take money to write articles, no matter how well you think they might meet the rules, then that represents a serious conflict of interest within the terms of WP:COI nonsense  ferret  23:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Note If you think the links given in reference section are not reliable then explain the reason on the debate. Please, share your views for proposing the deletion. Please, don't just comment that you didn't find any references etc. If the sources are found non-reliable or no reliable sources are added then admins will do the rightful for the article. Also, you'll not find me arguing with non-reliable sources. Thanks, NickAang (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The burden is on the article creator to know and provide proper sourcing, plus this was already explained to you above, however you fail to see this because you are now reduced to cutting pasting attacks on me in every AFD while still not providing proper sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG. Again explain why the article should be kept using sourcing, not how unfair it is that this was brought here. Ridernyc (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I cannot find any significant independent coverage, the links provided in the article are neither significant not independent within the terms of the WP:GNG I don't really see that a redirect is necessary. nonsense  ferret  23:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: Nothing more than a WP:COMPETENTPROFESSIONAL piece, e.g., just someone who is good at his job, no notability or accomplishments out of the ordinary range of a competent professional.--Milowent • hasspoken  04:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:GNG, my own Google News research (nothing turns up), nonsenseferret, and Milowent. I do not support the redirect for someone who "assisted" creating a company--and we have no source for that.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as I can find no coverage whatsoever in independent reliable sources. I also object to redirect on the grounds that he is not a founder of Funable, nor are there independent reliable sources to verify whatever it is that he is supposed to have done to help launch the company.  Self-published sources for such claims are not acceptable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as per the above editors, the lot of whom pretty much made the points I would have made. I have to reiterate the concern about sources, though - the two that aren't from the subject's website merely confirm that he exists and that a company with which he works also exists. Good as far as it goes, I guess, but it does little to establish the subject's notability. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 22:00, 31 January 2013 (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.