Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh King Madrid


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Josh King Madrid

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This individual has not attracted sufficient in-depth coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello . Hope you're well. What do you think of these coverages of the subject from Forbes, FS, Influencive... Warmly,  Lourdes  18:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In short I don't consider any of them reliable sources: anything at forbes.com/sites/ is outside of any editorial control and is essentially user-generated content. There are some exceptions, but the vast majority of what's written there can't be considered reliable and isn't suitable for determining notability. Future sharks shows no signs of reliability and they invite anyone to be "interviewed" from the looks of this document that's likely the source of this article too - for a $5000 fee! (As an aside note that the author of the "interview" Alejandro Rioja also promoted themselves here). Similar story for Influencive - note that the author is a marketing exec and at the end of the page it says "Opinions expressed here by Contributors are their own" which again indicates that there is zero editorial oversight. SmartSE (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Subject of article fails primary notability requirements such as WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG.    Celestina007 (talk) 21:13, 01 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete this is clearly a puff piece. It would need to be TNTed to meet standards, but there is still no clear sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and wP:ANYBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:45, 7 November 2017 (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.