Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Underwood


 * 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. Flowerparty ☀ 00:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ken Underwood

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

Does not satisfy WP:ANYBIO - hasn't received any notable award; hasn't "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his specific field". Also the article, having been written by at least one paid editor, reads like an advertisment. Laurent (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  KuyaBriBri Talk 17:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Entrepreneur, successful corporation, lots of news coverage including profiles in real newspapers.  Founding and running a successful corporation is notable.Historicist (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "lots of news coverage" is a bit excessive. Looking closely at the sources, there's only one article in a local newspaper about him . The rest is about his company . The USATODAY source is not about him, and he is only brieftly mentioned. I think his company may be notable but he doesn't appear to be. As mentioned above, he didn't receive any awards, and hasn't actually received much news coverage. According to WP:ANYBIO, the person should "[have] been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles", which is not the case here. Laurent (talk)


 * I (Ryan) have to disagree with the above by Laurent. You are using the article itself as evidence for the amount of new coverage on this person. If you go to Google News and search for Underwood, you find dozens of articles covering him, his companies, his political activities, and charitable activities. The article go back at least 6 years and come from a variety of local and national newspapers, USA Today, San Jose Mercury News, LA Times, FL Times-Tribune etc. There are also mulitple T.V. interviews of him. In the category of people from Florida he is certainly notable and at times highly controversial.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryannagy (talk • contribs) 15:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There are some results for "Ken Underwood" on Google News but I don't think that's him. For instance:
 * LA Times - "Ken Underwood, the hospital's chief operating officer" (not him)
 * New York Times - "Sabrina Underwood, a daughter of Cheong and Ken Underwood of Alexandria" (probably not him)
 * Usa Today - "National Safety Commission president Ken Underwood" (could be him but there's only one sentence and the article, overall, is not about him)
 * One can assume that the paid editor has already tried hard to find the best sources, and even these are not really satisfying. Laurent (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete As per nom do not feel he meets WP:N and WP:BIO clearly and further this article was paid for to be written here..Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of enough reliable, third-party sources that directly discussed the subject. Alexius08 (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to warrant an article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Arguably there could be separate articles on his companies, National Safety Commission and StereoFame, because that's primarily what the (limited) sources for this bio actually cover.  But for him as a person - no, the sources provided don't prove notability, I doubt very much there is anything else, assuming that the (paid) article creator did his/her best to obtain every scrap of information and marginal source that he/she could. -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 01:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * John - The fact that you "doubt very much" isn't a coherent argument. Are we simply going on your assumptions or would it be useful to look at the evidence? If a newspaper is a reliable, verifiable, source, I can quickly find a 30 references from five or six different regional and national newspapers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryannagy (talk • contribs) 15:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ryan, given that you commissioned and paid for the article I'm inclined to regard you as having a WP:COI and, as a result, I personally put less weight on your opinion on this subject. However, if you can provide the evidence for his notability (e.g the 30 references - also, have a good read of WP:Notability and the more specific WP:ANYBIO and see if you can provide evidence of the criteria listed there), then that can be assessed on it's own merits. On a side note, a) I'm curious (a genuine curiosity, I'm not trying to make a point) as to whether your commissioning of the article was at the request of Ken Underwood and if it was for promotional purposes and b) I recommend having a read of and inputting some remarks at WP:Requests for comment/Paid editing because one side of the story that hasn't really been heard from there is the side of the people commissioning these articles. Ha! (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable, minimal coverage in reliable sources, reads like an ad. Rebecca (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. per WP:NWikireader41 (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete spam by a single purpose pov pusher  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 02:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, spamvertisement. Cirt (talk) 06:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Not notable as individual. Companies maybe notable, but that's not the issue here. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is currently unclear whether subject meets notability guidelines, more evidence of significant coverage is needed. One of the companies, National Safety Commission, looks like it could be notable, and maybe there is some content in this article that could be useful there. snigbrook (talk) 07:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. MER-C 10:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:N, WP:NOTWEBHOST, etc. Doesn't help that it was bought and paid for either. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ken Underwood is mentioned on User:Ha!/paid editing adverts. --Ysangkok (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with John Broughton that it might be possible to write articles about one or both of the companies. Problem with paid editing: you have a tendency to do what the client asks, not use your own judgment about what would actually work. DGG (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

hi all - Thanks for your various comments and thanks for the respectful tone of the conversation. I would like the page to stay up, but as many of you have noted, I am certainly not impartial to the topic or conversation. But neither am I going to do the work to dig up the rest of the references and articles that I can find. Lesson learned Ryannagy (talk) 00:36, 19 June 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.