Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oren Alexander


 * 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 Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  17:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Oren Alexander

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article written primarily by two now-banned undeclared paid editors.  DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I found and read the sock-puppet investigation and it was such a clear and well documented case of WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:COI violations that the article should be WP:TNTed to deter such behavior in the future. GretLomborg (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as an advert and violation of our WP:TOU. Also G5 as created by a sock of an undoubtedly blocked account. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article was created by who is not banned afaict. The editors the nominator mentions only edited an already existing article. So why delete instead of reverting their edits? Regards  So  Why  16:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * as that editor has edited nothing else, it would seem at least a possibility that they are either the subject or a publicist for him. It was in 2013, too far back for checkuser.  DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTSPAM which is a core policy that is incorporated into WP:N, our overarching notability requirement, as an equal prong to GNG. The content before the currently blocked editors mentioned above is clearly promotional language as well, which while not a G5 argument, is still an argument to delete as promotional content. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTSPAM. Nothing more than a CV written in a very advertorial tone. Add to that, G5 which would also be a logical consequence to this 'Get me on Wikipedia' attempt. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2017 (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.