Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darren Barefoot


 * 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) 11:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Darren Barefoot

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This person has not nearly achieved notability. The company in the article Capulet Communications does not have an article itself as it is not notable either. The article seems to be written like a news release, it lists things which he was part of, none of the which are notable. A Google search of his books hasn't brought up anything. It is also worth noting that the subject of the article has made edits to the page and its talk page.  Nik ol ai Ho ☎️ 05:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete by all means as I was consulted about this article and whether it was deletion material and it in fact is, none of this actually establishes any independent notability or substance and there's nothing there's the capacity of notability in anything else. SwisterTwister   talk  05:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment and question. The nominator writes above: It is also worth noting that the subject of the article has made edits to the page and its talk page. Having noted this, I went to take a look. I notice a single edit to the article itself, made nine years ago; and a number of polite and tentative suggestions made on the talk page. That one edit hardly seems promotional; since that time, the biographee has I think been a model of what a biographee should be. Am I missing something, Nikolaiho? -- Hoary (talk) 12:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I just wanted to let people know about the fact that the person had been involved in the page (WP:COINOTBIAS). Technically, he did edit the page which is a WP:COISELF and I found another case of this with an edit by User:Leelefever [here] who seems to be his friend according to [this]. This may be irrelevant and is not the reason for why I am nominating this page for deletion but I think that people should be aware of this.  Nik ol ai Ho ☎️ 00:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. And thank you for the response. But let's be careful not even to appear to denigrate biographee-contributors where possible. We can't expect biographees to start off fully (or even vaguely) aware of Wikipedia's set of rules and guidelines (after all, very many contributors who aren't biographees start off under serious misapprehensions, yet some go on to become fine contributors); and after that one direct edit/addition (which I find constructive), the biographee's stance and talk page contributions have been admirable. -- Hoary (talk) 06:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Nothing suggests that WP:ANYBIO or other notability criteria are met.--Rpclod (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- I don't see an apparent COI problem, but the subject is not notable just yet per encyclopedia standards. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:47, 30 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.