Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Ritz


 * 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. v/r - TP 17:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Kelly Ritz

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Apparent promotional writing for non-notable business owner. See Articles for deletion/Stone Bridge Homes NW.  DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * On which subject, see Sockpuppet_investigations/Expewikiwriter, on the article's creator. 86.** IP (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence of notability anywhere. Apparently a spam article written by a professional spammer. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails to meet WP:BIO. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  08:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong delete No notability. COI-writing.  Fails any test for remaining on Wikipedia ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - entirely non-notable per WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - There are two good sources showing in the footnotes, I will observe. Carrite (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Two sources, yes, but two "good" sources? The one by Phil Favorite on the OregonLive blog is highly promotional in tone, and all of Phil Favorite's other posts to the blog are also promotional. It does not look to me remotely like an independent reliable source. The "source" in Builder Magazine is more difficult to assess, as it has been removed from the online version of the publication, and I have no access to a paper copy. However, everything I can see at http://www.builderonline.com/ looks to me substantially promotional. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong delete As per above comments.--Aspro (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Valfontis (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. The motivation behind creation of the article is irrelevant, but a few passing mentions aren't the same as depth of coverage per WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Typical businessperson, fails WP:BASIC Ms. Ritz or her promoters should wait until she becomes notable enough that a completely independent person writes about her or her business using multiple, substantive, independent, reliable sources. The Oregonian citation is by a |"special writer" for the paper's special advertising publications. Usually the Oregonian would be a fine citation, but this citation would only work to establish notability if the article also had a set of multiple independent write-ups about the person. Also ditto what Ted said. Valfontis (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails to meet notability guidelines. Rlendog (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2012 (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.