Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Weaver


 * 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 of the debate was Deleted by unknown administrator (Closing old afd discussion) SoothingR(pour) 14:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

David Weaver
Looks like a vanity page to me, no indication of notability. -- Ferkelparade &pi; 20:16, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC) Please do not add commercial links &mdash; or links to your own private websites &mdash; to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.
 * Delete Jacob1207 20:50, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete . Vaniography, ZZZZzzzzz. --Ianb 21:22, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. He's not hugely important, and the article (if kept) obviously needs some cleaning up from what looks like a press release (though it doesn't track the press release that I found at ).  Still, he's apparently the chief lobbyist for a Fortune 500 company (just barely, at #466, but they have a lot of contact with the public).  Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll be involved in an influence-peddling scandal and people will want to know more about him.  Someone who handles legislative affairs for a companuy in a closely regulated field is more notable than a lot of other corporate officers. JamesMLane 22:38, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 06:55, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. --Improv 15:48, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity page Keep per JML's adoption of this article (below) Wolfman 16:47, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * It is possible that this person is worthy of an article, but this CV is not that article. -- Jmabel 21:38, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree. I promise that, if the article is kept, I'll clean it up.  I don't want to take the time when it seems highly likely that the cleaned-up version would still be deleted.  I'll just have to live with the fact that most editors don't share my expansive view of how we should be covering businesses. JamesMLane 02:59, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Promises don't pay the rent. The practice on VfD is that if you're going to do this, you rewrite before the VfD ends if you want to convince people. We should not alter that policy. --Improv 19:16, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Also, a new article not so obviously vanity might not get onto VfD at all, and might pass if placed on VfD. We are voting about the article and not necessarily also the topic. And people can become more notable. Jallan 18:37, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Director of Public Affairs isn't a notable post, & no further evidence of notability is offered. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:00, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 'Delete No indication here of notatibility. Jallan 18:37, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable, not vanity, VfD is not cleanup. anthony (see warning) 19:38, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable, and it's apparently a resume c-n-p. -- Kaszeta 20:09, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)