Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Osman


 * 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. "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The US gov releasing a puff-piece on how charitable their citizens are is hardly independent. yandman 09:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Osman

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I don't think his news coverage constitutes notability under WP:BIO. Some are just glorified press releases! Computerjoe 's talk 18:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I was thinking about nominating this article myself... the external links provided are nothing more than puff pieces, and I can find nothing in G-news about him... fails notability as well as verifiability concerns... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The author contested PROD. I never got around to nominating it over here (timezones and whatnot). Computerjoe 's talk 18:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep for now: I was gonna say delete, but the various links at the bottom of this page look like they might be reliable sources&mdash;especially, and maybe and . In any case, the article needs major cleanup (it introduces him as the founder of some lame company, but it appears he's much more notable, if he's notable at all, for his humanitarian work in Afghanistan).r  ʨ  ana ɢ  talk/contribs 18:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The US government coverage is just basically a glorified press release and doesn't meet my expectations, as it isn't reliable. Computerjoe 's talk 19:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A press release from whom? Osman's business?  I did a quick search for "Howard Cincotta" and "Deborah Conn," the authors listed on the USgov page, and while the second name didn't turn up any hits, the first appears to be an actual journalist (his name comes up on several other news stories). r  ʨ  ana ɢ  talk/contribs 19:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * US government's. America.gov isn't really what I'd class as media, just government. Computerjoe 's talk 19:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  -- &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  19:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Read the article, it is poorly written, and the reliability is terrible. Macromonkey (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Poorly written" is not a reason for deletion (like I said above, it needs a lot of cleanup). r ʨ  ana ɢ  talk/contribs 20:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Reliability of sources is though. Computerjoe 's talk 21:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not impressed with the quality of the references and the article reads like his resume. I do think that if someone wants to write a neutral, well-referenced article on him they should be able to ignore the rules and create the article after it gets deleted. Right now I see no indication of his notability, either by having numerous reliable sources or implicit. I don't see how someone arranging 100 trips to Afghanistan for a relief effort (or whatever) makes someone implicitly notable.  Royal broil  01:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment:This guy might possibly become an ambassador to afghanistan soon. i listened to him speak at various government agencies in washington dc, he's only 26 years old and speaks to leaders and military commanders such as General Schloesser, General Mckiernan, etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.113.138 (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep There are plenty of sources that have listed authors and there are tons of wikipedia articles about random people, this gentleman has an article written by the state department and is very notable with regards to the short stub. I say keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.113.138 (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2009 (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.