Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Marshall (kwiboo)


 * 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. Snow delete, excluding the SPAs. The Articles for deletion/Kwiboo having gone, this must go too. Black Kite 07:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Paul Marshall (kwiboo)

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

Probable conflict of interest with main editor. Subject not notable per WP:BIO  Linguist At Large  19:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This satisfies the criteria around Creative Professional, clearly the subject is involved with the business he is linked to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.129.199.5 (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC) — 78.129.199.5 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * That may be true, but we need significant, published, secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject to prove his is notable.  Linguist At Large  22:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Three of the four references don't cover the subject and the 4th is not independent. - Mgm|(talk) 22:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm surprised that so much energy is spent on policing articles that are reasonable and support other sections of Wikipedia. The whole point of the Wikipedia and the internet is to provide information.  It’s informative and relevant. Guys, you need to take a chill pill and deal with plagiarised and factually incorrect content on Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.142.228.126 (talk) 12:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC) — 83.142.228.126 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, information needs to be encyclopedic, notable and verifiable.  <b style="color:#080;">Linguist</b> At <b style="color:#600;">Large</b> </b> 18:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - there do not appear to be any reliable sources that could be used to verify information in the article or establish notability as defined by either the general guideline or the specific guideline for people. I would suggest merging any reliably sourced information into Kwiboo but I think it is likely that that article will be deleted following the current AfD discussion. Guest9999 (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - No doubt both this article and the kwiboo one will be ones that are added to over time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.182.126 (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC) — 82.31.182.126 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete - Paucity of secondary sources to establish notability.--Danaman5 (talk) 06:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no reasonable secondary sources. Links to schools are not ok, neither is the link to company (and the company's article is likely to get deleted as well). --Tone 14:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete this too. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 22:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Just like the company, non-notable. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 23:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. His employees aren't helping. -  Jéské  Couriano  ( v^_^v ) 02:23, 15 December 2008 (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.