Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Pham


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Peter Pham

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Procedural nomination. Previously speedily deleted as self-promotion; the deleted article was largely created by User:Peterpham1 and User:C050881. Since the article had existed for several years before being speedily deleted, I believe it would be better to bring it to a full discussion now. (I have verified, by undeleting the last revision before deletion, that the new version of the article is nearly the same as the deleted one with just cosmetic changes.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 17:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 17:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete the subject has not received substantial coverage in reliable sources. Also WP:NOTPROMO - the article is so bad that IMO it is still G11 worthy. SmartSE (talk) 09:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete He has been interviewed a few times. Couldn't find anything substantive in a source check in addition to what is in the article (though did find plenty of other Peter Phams - including one on the Atlantic Council - not him). Article is an advert.Icewhiz (talk) 11:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - As Icewhiz mentioned, once you wade through the bazillion other 'Peter Phams' out there, there really isn't any coverage of this one to establish notability. Doesn't meet author or general biography notability guidelines either. For what it's worth, reads like promotional fluff.--Jack Frost (talk) 23:53, 14 April 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.