Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John-Paul 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   keep. A lot of participation from new accounts/ips in this discussion, which I factored accordingly. However, the sources do check out on the subject. It's not the strongest case for notability, but I would be unfairly discounting !votes that are in fact arguing within policy to close otherwise. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  04:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

John-Paul Lee

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Neither John-Paul Lee nor Tavalon Tea meet Wiki notability requirements. Both articles read as advertising. All edits to each page have been made by 2 users; possible evidence of self-promotion. SNaismith (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC) 21:41, 1 January 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.158.200.181 (talk) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - this appears to be a marginal case; there are some citations in the "external links" section, but I don't know if they count as "multiple sources". Bearian (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Checked out sources for Tavalon Tea and John-Paul Lee and it seems they are all legitimate and cited from major publications. Don´t see cause for deletion
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have performed extensive research on both Tavalon Tea and this individual beyond the listed links and I believe this article meets Wiki notability requirements. The articles do not read like advertisements and display "facts" backed up by notable publications. Articles should not be removed.  FoodieUSA (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Comment' The above comment looks like it is from a single purpose account. Billbowery (talk) 06:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment. The article is a BLP so let's give it a few more days. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Looks like it was edited by the same two accounts and reads like an advertisement — looks like self-promo to me as well. Billbowery (talk) 06:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - the NPR story that has been added pushes him over the line. Bearian (talk) 05:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article is a valid BLP of an individual who has been covered by numerous publications which are all credible. The article is a keep and should not be deleted. Teaphan (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per promotion attempts by User:Teaphan. Despite mention in multiple RS, these RS are fluff interviews typical of minor business promotion not bonafides. The RS are also duplicated between multiple articles. If there is a notable subject between this article about the CEO and the article about the company, it is the article about the company, not the CEO. Miami33139 (talk) 06:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The individual noted in this article had been featured in various publications about his accomplishments as CEO of the company and his vision. All publications are considered to be notable media (Entrepreneur Magazine, Business Week, National Public Radio, theStreet.com, New York Post, etc....)  This individual was also nominated and selected as a successful entrepreneur alongside Bill Gates, Michael Dell, Sergey Brin, Russell Simmons, to name a few.    The article should NOT be deleted. 11:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.1.85 (talk)
 * Keep Article is backed by bona fide interviews performed by credible sources. I would have questioned the legitimacy of the article but subject is featured in various publications which are all credit worthy. Features are also relevant and within criteria of a wiki article.  10:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.224.215 (talk)
 * 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.