Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David SK Lee


 * 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. Salting can be requested at WP:RFPP Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

David SK Lee

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page had been previously been successfully WP:PRODded but has since been recreated shortly after hence why I am bringing this up for AfD as I am doubtful recreated article that was deleted via PROD are eligible for WP:CSD.

The PROD rationale by the proposer as quoted: "Essentially such an advertisement, it's inches away from a G11, the fact it not only to specifics about his career information and what his business and activities involve (note the company link professionally taken "showcase style" photos are immediately listed early in the article); none of this actually establishes anything close at all for both independent notability and substance with a non-PR basis; the article is actually only ever sourced 2 times by major news sources and that's simply for his car collections."

My rationale to support the proposal: "I only heard of this guy when his name get mentioned on YouTube car videos a number of times but this PROD is hardly surprising given the promotional nature of this edit and reeks of paid editing given the professional look of the photographs. Excluding his car collections (which I cover later), the edits about him as a businessman makes him out to be just another run-of-the-mill businessman with a overglorified Linkedin profile called Wikipedia not helped that coverage about him in business is minimal. A huge portion of sources here is dedicated to his car collections but then there are plenty of people, notable or not, who have collections like that and do get invited to prestigious shows but then some of those are notable for other things that paid for their hobbies or have a high profile public museum." Donnie Park (talk) 05:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete by all means as the nomination statement clearly shows what my PROD was and it was actually then simply boldly removed by an SPA, yet that actually only emphasizes the PR intentions and actions, nothing else apart from that therefore Delete. SwisterTwister   talk  06:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt Despite a pretty good attempt to promote, the subject is not notable. I don't see any evidence that he is a notable Ferrari collector. Note that references such as and  in "Forbes/sites" are not considered reliable for the purpose of notability. This Huffpost "blog" is similar - user submitted content which is published with hardly any editorial oversight. (I remember the paid editor who was writing stuff on HuffPost blogs and then using them as sources). The rest of the mentions are passing/brief mentions or in questionable sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Let me fix this before you delete. Please and thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.153.190.17 (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Person is rich, but that doesn't make one notable, and he actually doesn't seem to have done anything to make him notable. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 14 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.