Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Wright (digital operator)


 * 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. It's snowing. Missvain (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Louis Wright (digital operator)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Speedy tag blanked by SPA, so bringing this here. Highly promotional article about a non-notable individual; sources are either SEO Spam (ONN, Extravagant), non-independent (lots of mere links to websites of NGOs he has worked with), unreliable (Instagram, company bio pages), or don't mention him at all (aforementioned links, Manchester Evening News, the Reading Chronicle). Ideally speedy delete as a case of WP:G11. Blablubbs | talk 00:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs | talk 00:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs | talk 00:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete: Promotional article that fails all points in WP:GNG. The references are horribly formatted, and don't even talk about the subject of the article. Incredibly suspicious of self-publishing, as there is random personal information in this article and the creator of this article has edited only this article and no other. The article is poorly written and shows no sign of any notability, and not to be rude, but I have never seen a digital operator with their own Wikipedia article. Coreykai (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete: This user has also attempted to recreate the same article on Uncyclopedia (a parody of Wikipedia) today, by literally copy-pasting the Wikipedia article under a nearly identical username; therefore, the evidence is quite clear that they are attempting to promote themselves, in a way. (See: Special:Contribs/Benswarbrick on Uncyclopedia). Additionally, I am recommending speedy deletion. KevTYD (wake up) 02:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:UPE spam; creator now blocked for spamming. MER-C 10:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete through AFD rather than speedy, to make it clear that identical content can be db-reposted on sight in the future. Speedy deletion requires that all good-faith non-author editors who see the template don't remove it, which may not happen if this content is re-posted after a G11 deletion.
 * Also recommend opening a formal (possibly pro-forma) WP:SPA (correction: WP:SPI, davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs) 🎄  18:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)) for the two meat/sockpuppets so returning confirmed socks can be easily tagged, bagged, and their creations db-banned.
 * Delete basically "per nom," per "likely not notable, but we can decide that later if and when a good-faith editor made a draft and finds good sources," and per off-wiki/Uncyclopedia evidence of bad-faith/promo editing by two accounts that created this. Even if this topic does turn out to be notable, it's clear this is not the basis for an acceptable article.
 * Bottom line: If its not notable, delete, if it is, WP:Blow it up and start over with a fresh draft by non-COI editors that goes through an approval process (or, hypothetically, is so obviously notable and neutrally-written that nobody will mind if the author moves it into main-space).  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs) 🎄  15:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC) (SPI recommendation struck, it's being handled. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs) 🎄  18:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC))


 * delete preferably speedy, this is just straight up PR gibberish sourced to blackhat SEO spam. G5, G11 apply See Louis Wright (blogger), IamlwrightDraft:Louis Wright (internet personality), Louis Wright (Blogger), Draft:Louis Wright Praxidicae (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Should this page be officially determined to be db-banned-eligible but for any significant contributions I may have made let it be known that I have no objection to a deletion under that criteria, once it is determined to be eligible. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs) 🎄  18:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - completely fails WP:BASIC Spiderone  20:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - clearly G5-able (SPI) but, given the persistence of its creator, it's useful to have G4 available too (looks like WP:SNOW). Cabayi (talk) 13:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete fails all notability. WikiSzeman (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete a not-yet-notable 22-year-old.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2020 (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.