Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Lincoln (telecommunications)


 * 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. Will also salt the title, per excellent suggestion by 43.241.117.193. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

John Lincoln (telecommunications)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Puff piece for a non-notable corporate executive. In view of the author's other articles it looks like a paid piece to me. Author's SPI for (talk)  06:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. for  (talk)  07:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. for  (talk)  07:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. for  (talk)  07:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. clearly promotional paid bio by an now banned obvious paid sock editor, responsible for dozens of equally non notable articles on corporate executives. No real notability in any even--the accomplishments are of no interest outside the company . Notability is claimed as the author of a book, but it turns out the book is self-published through Author House. I hope whoever paid for this gets their money back,  because adding such a book doesn't show basic competence.  DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per DGG. If the speedy hadn't been denied, that would have worked too: it's promotional. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: This article is notable as it has received significant coverage in multiple published as per GNG. Vandals and sockpuppets will just keep on re-creating the article if it's deleted. 43.241.117.193 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In which case we'll salt it. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I want to make two points here:


 * How can you claim that if it is a paid editing?
 * If article is notable and meets all notability guidelines then it should not be deleted.43.241.117.193 (talk)
 * Note: This IP has contributed only on the AfD's of articles created by puppets of Caroline A. Murphy. for (talk)  12:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Puppetry reported. for (talk)  12:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, if it looks like paid editing, it's written like paid editing, and it smells like paid editing, chances are it's paid editing. And the notability (of the subject) is precisely what we're discussing here: it's not looking good right now. Drmies (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The article subject passes WP:GNG because of all the sources. Whoever created the article, whether a disclosed paid editor or not, does not keep the subject from being notable or from passing GNG. 43.241.117.171 (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This comment is made by the same IP as above (43.241.117.193) .43.241.117.171 (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete The sources given are misleading and of poor quality. In several cases, instead of the actual article titles being included in the reference, a quote from the article mentioning Lincoln is used as a fake title to make the source seem more relevant than it is. The sources are passing mentions, press releases, not independent or consist of quotes of Lincoln doing his job. The GNG is not met.Cullen328  Let's discuss it  19:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as an advertisement. Obviously promotional (sorry,, but I think you're quite wrong), obvious sock-puppetry, and very probably undisclosed paid editing. This sort of editing needs to be mercilessly stamped out, and the best way of doing that is deletion. The image is presumably a copyvio (any Commons admins reading this?). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. An email was sent to me by the PR agency of the subject offering me money to get this article "passed". I have turned down their offer and made it clear to them how Wikipedia volunteers / editors function. Since I am now involved with this matter (unintentionally), I am refraining from a vote (I have communicated the same to the person who contacted me) and am bringing the issue to everyone's notice. Please decide accordingly. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  06:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment & my conclusion. Owing to what I stated above, I just want to make it clear that it is beyond reasonable doubt that this article is a clear case of "paid editing" . I am not commenting on the merit, quality and notability of article and will leave it to other participating editors. Should anyone want to have a look at the email I exchanged with the PR agency, kindly let me know and I will forward you the entire chain. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  07:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * : Waw nice story. BTW, How much did you charge from John's competitor to make this comment. 43.241.117.128 (talk)
 * Delete: Effectively a CV piece promoting a man who has had jobs and has self-published a book. The given references are a mix of routine announcements, pieces by the subject, and business blurb pieces. I am seeing nothing to suggest the subject has encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 12:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as does not seem notable enough for an article as he has had insufficient very senior positions and only had one book self-published.Can't understand why paid editing is allowed, and then there is attempted bribery. Atlantic306 (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Way too promotional, and subject fails WP:GNG, lacking in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Edwardx (talk) 22:01, 8 July 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.