Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George L. Rose


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

George L. Rose

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Despite the impressive-looking list of references there is no indication that George Rose is notable. The references almost all fall into one of two categories: They're not independent (such as newspaper commentary written by Rose himself) or they do not mention Rose at all. The only two that might possibly be exceptions are the Bloomberg profile and a passing mention in the Financial Times a la "says George Rose", quoting him for his company's position. I've found nothing helpful via Google, and those two do not suffice to establish Rose's notability, much less support the rather spammy article. Huon (talk) 09:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Smells like another PR job. I am not seeing any sources with serious coverage as required by WP:BIO, just a bunch of PR profiles and few mentions in passing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per Piotrus. References presented do not establish notability as they are not independent and/or do not mention the subject. Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. I object to continuous attempts to delete pages based on subjective notion of "notability". I understand consensus needs to be reached but reasons given here could apply to countless other articles about relatively obscure people, things and ideas. I happen upon this page doing research on video game industry and violence. For my topic I would have liked to know opinions of that industry leaders as expressed in published editorials. I would have never be able to otherwise. This is what Wikipedia is for, to help with finding things that are not necessarily to be found in other "encyclopedias". If that was the criteria, Wikipedia would stop its existence and become entirely redundant. So either delete all of pages similar to this or do not delete them based on personal bias. This is my first time responding and I am sure I messed something up but this just rubbed me wrong way. As a Wikipedia user I want more not less and certainly not as edited at whim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drozddrofa (talk • contribs) 00:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are far less sourced entries out there with far less content. The numerous and detailed recent additions need to sourced or removed but the base origin of this entry has enough reliable sources to prove notability.--Monstermike99 (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a helpful argument. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 05:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Comment This article seems to be heavily influenced by a WP:SPA - Glr9763. The objection from Drozddrofa is the only edit under that account and the account was created on the 14th of August, presumably to object to the deletion. As to the objection of Monstermike99, it's the old "two wrongs don't make a right." That's what keeps WP:AfD busy. I'm saying weak delete because if the article were pared down to truly substantial information (it seems quite bloated with irrelevant links) it might pass muster. LaMona (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Agreed LaMona, I wasn't implying two wrongs don't make a right, just noting my original submission has the basis to keep it from being a stub with WP:RS and therefore not worthy of deletion. I don't object to taking out all the recent additions but my original creation was neutral and non-promotional.--Monstermike99 (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (tell me stuff)  @ 20:52, 2 September 2014 (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.