Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daryl D. Green


 * 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 consensus in this discussion appears to hold that the vast majority of the references provided are self-published or regurgitated press releases, and that the notability of the subject has been insufficiently demonstrated. The suspicion that this article is indeed the result of paid editing is also distinctly plausible, despite assurances to the contrary. ~ mazca  talk 19:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Daryl D. Green

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Biographical/ad page for primarily self-published author. No significant coverage in independent third party sources. Most of the citations are unverifiable, trivial mentions or primary sources. While there is one verifiable citation from a reputable newspaper, it's a column written by the subject, not about the subject. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep That was the reason presented when I created the first version. In the meantime I learned some more about what would be expected to appear in such an article. I added independent third party sources, certainly not trivial mentions. I guess they are enough now to make clear the notability. I'm not sure about verifiability, would it mean that only on-line sources are accepted? The newspaper articles can be verified in libraries (where I found available, I included the respective link). Yedogawa (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - A personal page. This stuff belongs on LinkedIn, not wikipedia. RanJayJay (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC) — RanJayJay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Google and and Yahoo generate sufficient number of hits for an article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you please explain why your vote is an exception to WP:GOOGLEHITS from Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions? &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 20:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:AUTHOR with only 3 of his books being listed in WorldCat, and only being held by 15, 8, and 7 libraries. GScholar show that his works have been cited exactly two times. GNews shows only an article that he wrote, and no independent cites by reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Fails WP:PROF under all 9 of the criteria.  Of the third party sources, those that I could look at were either in relation to book signings, to articles written by the subject of the article, and general references to notability by being a writer (see fails Author, above). Don't know if this is a WP:SPA - hard to tell based on the limited time as an editor, but the overwhelming majority of the editing is on Green.  Assuming good faith, I would recommend that the article be userfied, and that the article then reworked (if it is possible to show notability under Author or Prof standards). (GregJackP (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC))
 * Comment WP:GNG requires "Significant coverage", "Reliable Sources", "Independent of the subject" and "Presumed". There is significant, third party coverage in reliable sources like Knoxville News Sentinel, Shreveport Times, Ebony, Tri-City Herald, and others that can be seen in the article. Most of the media coverage seems to come from the years 1998-2000 and GNews does not help in this sense. The only such article I found available on-line was not even on the official website, but on findarticles.com. Yedogawa (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Delete but give yedogawa one more week to improve per GregJackP. The books mentioned are self-published from vanity presses. This has WP:PEOPLE problems which states:"If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Green lacks substantial coverage and most of the other sources are trivial as outlined by TheRealFennShysa above. I would like to hear from Yedogawa his relation to the article's subject. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 01:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * However, from the below discussion, Yedogawa is working in good faith, making many changes to the article while learning Wikipedia policies (we've all ridden that curve) and plans on making radical changes. My opinion is that he should be given one additional week. If at the end of that week the article still doesn't establish notability, then we should userfy it to give him more time. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 19:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. The contributor has done an impressive job of compiling links, but there is still no evidence of the kind of substantial independent coverage called for in the general notability guideline. The references cited in the article are largely self-published, and the Google and Yahoo search results that Pharaoh of the Wizards cites consist almost entirely self-published items (such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and bios submitted to another website) or articles posted on free-content sites like associatedcontent. Because Mr. Green lives in my local area, I have seen or read some of the local newspaper coverage mentioned, and I recognized his name when the article appeared. I don't recall ever seeing local media coverage that would be considered substantial. --Orlady (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I identified 5 sources that were (or appeared to be) self-published. I went ahead and deleted them and I added some other sources published in prestigious journals. Now there are no self-published sources in the references (to my knowledge of what means self-publishing). And, even as they were yesterday, I saw they did not make the references "largely self-published". Regarding the quote from WP:PEOPLE, all the third party articles from 1998-2000 that I selected to add as references are entirely about Daryl D. Green (except the one from Ebony, where the article covers him together with other people), describing at length, in substantial articles, his family life, the way he considers the relation between family and workplace, his book, the notion of "meshing", the way he originated it etc. Orlady should point out which referenced coverage read by her is not substantial, since I already made a selection, discarding inevitable short sources which could not be considered substantial. Regarding the time of sources, it seems that his peak of notability was in those years, after he published the first book (at least from what I could find, anyway here should apply WP:NTEMP). I am not related to the subject of the article. I saw this question quite often in the other requests for deletion, when researching about this situation. Personally, I don't find it relevant in the overall process of deletion requests, since we are working with visible facts and no single editor has control over the article. Yedogawa (talk) 10:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It is relevant as far as the guideline WP:COI is concerned which Wikipedia strongly discourages. It states:"Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia." &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 17:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not obligated to try to prove Mr. Green's non-notability by providing reference citations for the random newspaper articles that I vaguely recall having read in the past 10 to 15 years. The burden of proof is on Yedogawa (and/or other contributors interested in demonstrating that Mr. Green is notable) to find sources that demonstrate notability. If notability cannot be demonstrated, the page does not belong in article space until such time as notability is demonstrated. --Orlady (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment You are not obligated to prove, but in the same time you shouldn't declare something based on "vaguely recall". This while now there are cited the significant third party sources. As an overall comment, I see that the discussion remains based on the state of the article at the moment of its creation, when it did not make clear what would this person be notable for, with LinkedIn type references and that list of books.Yedogawa (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yedogawa, my point was that I thought back over my recollections of reading articles about Mr. Green, but I couldn't recall anything that would make me think he would be considered notable by Wikipedia standards. If I had remembered some coverage that had led me to think there was a basis for notability, I would have offered suggestions on what to look for. I did not also say that I believe I met Mr. Green a couple of times, as I know that isn't relevant to his notability. My apologies for trying to be helpful. --Orlady (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 00:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment The 7 days deadline is getting near. I saw that the guideline recommends debate and consensus, not vote counting. However, I saw that in practice the vote counting is the one usually taken into consideration. I want to draw attention to the changes occurred when compared to the first version of the article, at this moment it has no self-published references and it establishes notability with multiple independent and substantial sources. Yedogawa (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I clicked on the link to his co-authored paper "Diversity as a Competitive Strategy in the Workplace" (Journal of Practical Consulting. Vol I, Iss. 2, pp. 51-55), thinking that it might provide an author profile, but the URL included in that link is http://www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/GreenD02.pdf -- Green's article on "Divine Empowerment: Interpretation through the Exegesis of Acts 2". (That article does have a profile, but it does not indicate notability: "Regent University, Doctoral candidate in Strategic Leadership; MA in Organizational Management; Ordained Deacon, Bible Lecturer, and Youth Advisor at Payne Avenue Baptist Church (Knoxville, Tennessee)".) --Orlady (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply to comment - I have no doubt that Mr. Green is an estimable fellow, but I'm not seeing evidence of notability per Wikipedia criteria. The article states "Mr. Green became known for his lectures and writings...". Since "became known for" is a claim to notability, I looked for the sources cited. However, the two sources cited on that sentence do not tell me that he is "known for" these things. One source is a Knoxville News Sentinel article (not online) with a headline saying that he led a seminar at a meeting (I can point to plenty of nonnotable people who have led seminars at meetings...). The other is a link to a page in this article in Ebony, which I guess was written by Green, but I can't find his name on the article (much less an indication that he is "known for" something). The next sentence cites two reviews of his book, both in local newspapers, with titles ("Couple mesh mission with balancing families" and "Creative Crowd: Writer offers family hope") that suggest that these were essentially human-interest feature stories about a local person (good stuff, but not a clear indication of notability).


 * The article in Ebony was not written by Green, but by Ebony staff. One actually reading the article can see point 6, consisting in one of the advices from Daryl's first book. Regarding the "suggestion" of the titles, you discuss again in the vein of "vaguely recalling" articles about Green. I already mentioned what they are covering. "Stories about a local person" would rather be the two sources about him being a native of Shreveport. And these two are also part of the 1998-2000 sources asserting notability, they were written on the occasion of being given the keys to the City of Shreveport on "Daryl Green Day", covering at length the things that made him notable in those years, i.e. the ideas from that book.


 * Regarding the co-authored paper, I think it was obvious that it was a editing, copy/paste mistake, the URL was in fact that of a previously cited work. I added the correct URL.


 * As a side note, for my future knowledge, where in the guidelines it is said that "stories about local people" are not notable? I mean I suppose it depends on what is actually written in the article in ascertaining notability or not. Yedogawa (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence of the independent non trivial coverage required to establish notability. Nuttah (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:PEOPLE, "multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability"

Multiple independent non trivial sources:

Yedogawa (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - I searched the online archives at the Oak Ridger newspaper for potentially useful 3rd-party coverage. Here are some excerpts from the more promising hits:
 * May 1, 1998 - Creative Crowd: Writer offers families hope (cited in the article): "I believe we all have a destiny," Daryl Green said this week. He believes his, at least for the present, is coaching single parents and working couples in how to set and implement family goals. In 1997 Daryl and his wife, Estraletta, began working with families in interactive family coaching sessions and with small groups, which led to workshops for larger groups. Daryl is the author of "My Cup Runneth Over: Setting Goals for Single Parents and Working Couples," published in February 1998 by Triangle Press in Oak Ridge. The book, subtitled, "A Practical Guide for Implementing Family Goals and Improving Communication," is available at Books-A-Million here and at Books-A-Million, Davis-Kidd Booksellers and Barnes & Noble in Knoxville. ...Daryl recalls that he and Estraletta were just out of college, married two or three years, when he went to a Family Life Conference that changed his focus. ... A native of Baton Rouge, La.,, Daryl earned a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering and a master's degree in organizational management. He is currently with the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge Operations office working as an environment project manager charged with locating new technology to clean up DOE environmental sites. "My emphasis is in management," he said. "My expertise is in the management techniques used in the corporate world. I have managed a nonprofit organization and government programs, but the hardest thing to manage is families." It is the same management techniques he and Estraletta, who holds a bachelor's degree in civil engineering from Southern University A&M, use in their professional careers which they bring to their family coaching sessions, small groups and workshops....
 * October 9, 1998, Greens give family support seminars: Blacks in Government (BIG), one of the largest advocacy organizations in the United States, sponsored its 20th annual National Training Conference in Washington, D.C.... Oak Ridge employees Daryl and Estraletta Green presented two workshops at the conference. The Greens conduct seminars and provide personal coaching for families around the country.
 * March 12, 1999, Oak Ridge engineer launching TV show: Daryl Green, an author and Oak Ridge engineer with the Department of Energy, will host a new talk show called "FamilyVision" that will air Monday and Wednesday, March 15 and March 18, on Community Television of Knoxville's cable Channel 12. The new show will feature local guests with inspiring stories to help families.... Green and his wife, Estraletta, conduct family seminars across the country and write a column that has appeared in The Oak Ridger and in newspapers in Knoxville and Shreveport, La. They have been featured on television and radio programs, including "Alive at Five" and "Beyond the Headlines: The African-American Point of View."
 * July 28, 2000, Greens in August issue of Ebony: Daryl and Estraletta Green, Oak Ridge employees, will provide advice in Ebony Magazine. The article, "10 Things You Must Know Before You Say 'I Do'" will appear in the August issue. The Greens are nationally syndicated columnists and offer insight to national media outlets such as USA Today and BET cable television. Daryl Green says their consulting company, PMLA, helps individuals as well as business deal with the issues of balancing work and family life. He is the author of "My Cup Runneth Over: Setting Goals for Single Parents and Working Couples." The Greens are also considered residential experts on such sites as Exp.com, Allexperts.com, Askme.com and Keen.com. Visit the Web site at www.afamilyvision.com.
 * February 16, 2001. Briefs: Book signing Monday: Daryl D. Green, an Oak Ridge engineer, will sign copies of his new book, "Awakening the Talents Within" at 5 p.m. on Monday, Feb. 19, at Books-A-Million in Oak Ridge. ... Green says this is a wake-up call for the next generation of leaders. "The solutions contained in the book reflect over 10 years of managing, consulting and teaching in government, nonprofit, business, private and academic institutions," he said. Green and his wife, Estraletta, offer advice nationally in USA Today, Ebony Magazine and BET on cable.
 * In addition to these, I found several contributed columns by Green (on parenting and other topics); several items about Green's involvement in Toastmasters meetings and Blacks in Government; and several items about his teaching seminars local (at community colleges and on local cable TV) about topics like "how to become a published author". --Orlady (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't believe Green wrote the Ebony article (at least there is no attribution). He has a brief mention in the article on page 2. I disagree with the statement, "at this moment it has no self-published references". "My Cup Runneth Over" is published by "Performance Management & Logistics Associates" which isn't a bona fide publisher. The article includes "Breaking Organizational Ties" but doesn't note that it is self-published. The article's grandest statement is, "The FamilyVision column, written together with his wife Estraletta Green, has reached over 200 newspapers and more than 15 million readers (syndicated through Newspaper Publishers Association)." The only references to verify that are 5 off-line references from 2000/2001 from publications of which none have Wikipedia articles. When searching for this column, I found several online entries written by his wife -- one in particular which advocates self-publishing and laments that "[t]he major purpose for traditional publishers is to turn a profit." Well, Wikipedia requires mainstream publishers. To make the extraordinary claim 200 newspapers and a 15 million readers, the article's author must provide extraordinarily high quality sources to verify that statement. The entire last paragraph is without citations. The statement "He was noted and quoted by USA Today, Ebony Magazine, Associated Press, NBC’s Alive at Five, Answerline, American Urban Radio, and BET’s Buy the Book" is uncited. I'm sorry, but this doesn't rise to the level of notability that Wikipedia requires. It strikes me as a self-promotion page relying on self-published books and unverifiable claims. This would be more fit on LinkedIn or on his personal web site where he does a fine job of promotion. Finally, I'd like to hear from Yedogawa whether he is employed or under contract with Green. And, yes, it is relevant. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 20:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * To be clear, do you fall under one of these two categories (from WP:COI):
 * 1) you are receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes); or
 * 2) you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia; for example, by being an owner, officer, or other stakeholder of a company or other organization about which you are writing; &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 20:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

''I disagree with the statement, "at this moment it has no self-published references". "My Cup Runneth Over" is published by "Performance Management & Logistics Associates" which isn't a bona fide publisher.''

The book does not appear in the references, the references section comprises sources published by bona fide publishers. It is discussed in these references, that's another story, it was notable.

The article's grandest statement is, "The FamilyVision column, written together with his wife Estraletta Green, has reached over 200 newspapers and more than 15 million readers (syndicated through Newspaper Publishers Association)."

Then you may delete that (I deleted it myself, it looked like no one else would do that). I added the TV show mentioned in one of the new sources provided by Orlady.

The statement "He was noted and quoted by USA Today, Ebony Magazine, Associated Press, NBC’s Alive at Five, Answerline, American Urban Radio, and BET’s Buy the Book" is uncited.

I added citations for some of them from the new sources provided by Orlady. Probably the others could be cited too, but they require some more research, I deleted them, it is getting really tiring.

The entire last paragraph is without citations.

I deleted that.

Regarding WP:COI, I don't fall under those categories. I read several years ago the book "My Cup Runneth Over", and I had some idea about the coverage it received in 1998-2000, if this is a COI. I created the article, then I got dragged into proving more and more the notability. I was quite alone, no one was interested in studying the media coverage concerning this person, except the last comment by Orlady.

As a final note to your comment, these looked rather like ideas for improving the article, since there is no word about the multiple independent non trivial sources provided per WP:PEOPLE. Yedogawa (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Most of the items that I cited appeared to be press releases from Mr. Green that were dutifully reproduced in the local newspaper. I would be very surprised if the Oak Ridger had verified statements like "offer advice nationally in USA Today, Ebony Magazine and BET on cable." The one item in that collection that was bona fide 3rd party coverage was the May 1, 1998 article, "Creative Crowd: Writer offers families hope", which is the only piece that had an writer's byline on it. It appears to have been written from the blurb on the book jacket plus an interview with Daryl Green. As coverage goes, it's not nearly enough to demonstrate notability -- a very similar article would have been written about a local kid who won the regional spelling bee or a local woman whose quilts were put on display in the public library. --Orlady (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I find this pattern of singling out coverage that would not be accepted as reference on Wikipedia (which at this moment does not even appear in the article, this would have been a matter of cleaning the sources by an experimented user) and presenting them as the "reference". However, this does not give an answer to the 3rd party coverage currently listed as references. Nobody talks about it, as if it would not exist. Yedogawa (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As some examples 'ORO Employee Writes Book on Family Goal Setting, The Department of Energy - Oak Ridge Operations Office, Public Information Office, Volume 1, No. 4, January 1998' is not independent, it is written by his employer. 'Famous Knoxvillians". City of Knoxville' & 'Tennessee Writers". University of Tennessee.' are his name on a list, not substantial coverage. '10 Things You Must Know Before You Say 'I do' is a couple of lines of comment by the subject, not substantial coverage of the subject of the article. Many others are items written by the subject. The newspapers articles appear to be of the format 'x will be appearing/lecturing at y', again not coverage of the subject. The requirement at WP:GNG requires work along the lines of academic or media coverage of the article's subject that is not written by the subject or his associates. If you wish to use items written by the subject to establish notability, it needs to be material that has been used and cited by others in the field widely. Nuttah (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The newspapers articles appear to be of the format 'x will be appearing/lecturing at y' 


 * I don't see these ones in the picture: Families, same as jobs, need energy, goals; Couple mesh mission with balancing families; Ex-Shreveporter visits with a message (this is not about 'lecturing', but when he received the keys of the City of Shreveport, on "Daryl D. Green Day"); Creative Crowd: Writer offers family hope


 * The article in DOE is necessary in order to show the position of this Department regarding the way he applied elsewhere skills used in this institution. Yedogawa (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) Respoding to Yedogawa: The references include a couple of mentions in local papers, some quoting Green's unverified press releases, information about seminars, mention of self-published book signings, a DOE press release, a whole series of citations from publications that do not have a Wikipedia article, 2 papers he has written on benchmarking, a "post" from the Knoxnews.com about bad bosses, a religious article for a free online "journal", and an article for a journal put out by Pat Robertson's Regent University. Nothing here rises to a level of notability that would warrant a Wikipedia article. It is not about quantity but quality. The fact that someone gets published in a couple of technical/academic journals does not establish notability. I understand and empathize that you were moved by his self-published ""My Cup Runneth Over" written 15 years ago. There are many venues to recommend his book -- Amazon is a great place for laying out the value of his book. But if we included everyone who has had a mention or two in a local newspaper or who have written a technical article or two, we'd be flooded. Instead of all of these primary sources you are finding, you need to find tertiary sources that establish his notability. For instance, the Ebony article is a good example, though too brief a mention to be useful. That the local a newspaper mentions that Green is having a book signing and quotes his press release establishes neither notability or verifiability of the claims in his press release. Find reliable sources -- mainstream, published, known for fact checking -- that state that (say) his technical articles made significant changes in his area of expertise, then you would help establish his notability. From WP:NRVE:"The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition...." &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 19:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I see. I uploaded here 3 articles (one is covered on two images), among those published in media with Wikipedia articles, to give an idea about why I see notability in this case. Yedogawa (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly, those are three good references. You have done an excellent job editing the article, stripping it of its unproven claims (e.g., 200 newspapers). For it to remain an article, you would need to work on shrinking it even further, writing it in more of a neutral point of view and less of a promotional piece that sounds too much like a resume and focusing primarily on his reputation for family goal setting and much less on him being a "20th Century Renaissance Man". His professional work can be mentioned as background in the bio section but without all the "He managed over 400 projects estimated at $100 million before he was 30" verbiage. To state he has been "featured on USA Today, etc." would have to be verified not from Green himself but, preferably, from (say) USA Today itself or at least an independent reliable source. I would focus on his original book, leave off all of his self-published books and try to find other third party sources that would confirm his success as a prominent family advisor. It would be great to find out if any substantial newspaper carried his column. I believe you are fighting an uphill battle, but obviously you are a quick learner and may be able to overcome it. As the article stands now, I don't see it happening. But it will depend upon you to provide more substance. Although I would still vote for deletion, I wouldn't see any harm to the project if you wanted another week or so to further develop the article, particularly taking out the promotional stuff. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 21:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Piece of advice, you may want to userfy the article or put it into incubation which, barring extensive changes to the current article, is probably your best bet to give yourself time to make a Wikipedia-worthy article. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 22:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing out these concrete issues. The initial content of the article was mostly a compilation from various on-line sources and indeed phrases like "20th Century Renaissance Man" wouldn't have a place here. I think another week would be useful, since the discussion is already started here. Yedogawa (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm only one voice here -- I've changed my vote to "Delete but give you one more week". I hope they provide you the time. If Green was truely featured in (for one example) USA Today, then that would go a long way to establishing notability. "Featured" as a well defined sense thaat the newspaper had a feature article on Green. Sometimes, some companies say "featured" meaning they ran an ad in a publication. That, naturally neough, wouldn't qualify. The more third party confirmation of Green's expertise in family dynamics, the better. The reason that verbiage such as "He managed over 400 projects estimated at $100 million before he was 30" is not helpful is because that doesn't establish his notability by which I don't mean that isn't an impressive accomplishment and I know the level of focus and skill required to be a DOE project manager but that doesn't rise to the level of notability required for Wikipedia. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 19:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong delete as paid editing spam created through this request on elance dot com. Our spam guideline and conflict of interest guideline come into play here, as well as our policy that Wikipedia is not intended as a vehicle for promotion.  Them  From  Space  18:46, 4 March 2010 (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.