Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Juergensen


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Owen&times; &#9742;  01:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Kevin Juergensen

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

A lot of WP:ORIGINAL done here. None of the sources are WP:RELIABLE. TLA (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Television, Environment, Technology, California,  and New York.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  05:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  17:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm Kevin Juergensen, and I've now been contacted by people who want me to pay them money to keep this wikipedia page going, which means it is some sort of scam. Everything on this page is accurate, and many things without sources as per Wikipedia Guidelines are NOT listed on it for that reason.  I did not create this page, nor did I pay someone to create this page.  I have some prominence in the field of scuba diving and life support, and as such someone created this page ages ago.  I would offer to improve the page, but that seems narcissistic, which means maybe you guys will just delete it, which seems odd for a repository of human knowledge.  If AfD becomes weaponized, then it seems to me that Wikipedia will shrink significantly as who has the energy to fight that?   I'm not going to pay the scammer to try and keep this page going, and I've reported this to the Wikipedia folks via the method they describe in the AfD scam page. Anyway, thank you for listening. 204.197.153.14 (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: The page has been around since 2011. If the person wasn't notable, they could simply have removed the page right from the start. Why nominate this page for deletion now? Looking at the comment, someone emailed him asking for money in return for keeping the page. This makes me wonder if some editors would randomly nominate a page for deletion, hoping to scam the person on the page. Iamsuperingbo (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * FYI, we'll edit your article for free. Just ask for help. Oaktree b (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete: Lack of much of any sourcing in RS. This isn't a RS and it's about all I find for this person.  Oaktree b (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, so the guy masquerading as a "Senior Wikipedia Administrator" by the name of "Brendan Conway" has been sending me e-mails 1-2 times a day asking me to send him $1499 (interesting figure) to "keep your Wikipedia page". You folks ought to recognize an organized scam when you see one.  Now, this page is "relisted" and the very same guy just sent me another e-mail saying "I'd like to tell you that your page has been relisted for deletion for the second time."  Oh wow.  What a shocker.  Either it's a bot that is watching this page, or it is actually someone who is nominating it for a AfD.  In any event, I'm afraid Wikipedia is going to lose all relevance once these types of people realize the scam they can run.  I love Wikipedia, but this kind of stuff is bound to ruin it. 204.197.153.14 (talk) 03:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We're well aware of the scam, and I can promise you my relist was simply the seven day ticker rather than any collaboration with the scammer. You can either contact paid-en-wpwikipedia.org as directed or ignore the emails. The community, not a scammer, will decide whether your article meets the requirements for an article. Star   Mississippi  13:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Yeah, the scammer is just some opportunist who likely keeps tabs on AfDs for people and organizations. That an article has been around for some time is not a valid reason for keeping. At the end of the day, the sourcing needed to pass WP:GNG just isn't there. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2024 (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.