Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Gastauer


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Michael Gastauer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Relevant discussion at Talk:Michael Gastauer and Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard about this subject. After looking at the information over the last day, subject is not notable and fails WP:GNG. References from the U.S show all positive press and claim his notability as being a billionaire in charge of a fast growing financial company which also has a Wikipedia page WB21. German sources have published articles stating the U.S. sources have been fact checked and nothing stated (such as his network or the sale of a previous company) check out. It does show he was potentially involved in criminal and civil proceedings related to that company but nothing that would amount to be notable for it. One publication, Forbes, pulled its articles on him today. Other sources such as the Business Insider, Business.com, and Huffington Post all appear to be contributor generated without editorial oversight which essentially qualify them as WP:SPS. There are several accounts that have been blocked associated with editing the article and there will potentially be WP:SPA accounts showing up here to vote, just FYI. CNMall41 (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * delete i agree - not great sources, and what there are suggest shadiness. Both this article and WB21 were built by the same editors; am nominating W21 for deletion on the same grounds; poor refs, promo pressure, what refs we have suggest weirdness but neither refs nor hints are strong enough to build an article on, especially with BLP in mind.  So WP:TOOSOON and if this subject is eventually notable, article might look very different. Jytdog (talk) 07:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * done Articles for deletion/WB21 Jytdog (talk) 07:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: originally a tenuous article, with the pulling of the only real WP:RS and the continued SPAs showing up to try to promote it there is no real reason to keep this article -- samtar talk or stalk 07:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:6838:4CCC:E556:4225:C9D8:ADC (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * delete as it stands may become notable for fraud or media hoaxing, but WP:TOOSOON on those - David Gerard (talk) 11:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Per above. Kleuske (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete for both this page and WB21 Fin3999 (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I just managed to look at the extensive amount of disruption. Essentially, whoever is behind this used multiple paid editors - - all of whom have not been blocked for socking. The fact is that there are not enough reliable sources to be able to write an article. More importantly, while some of the sources show that the subject may be fraudster, there is not enough coverage to show that he is a notable fraudster. Combine that with the fact that multiple paid editors are trying to whitewash and promote the subject, I will go for a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2016 (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.