Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tate


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Richard Tate

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

WP:NN businessperson, fails WP:BIO. Frankly looks like a puff autobiography, but notability was asserted, so I had to decline speedy. Toddst1 (talk) 23:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete with extreme prejudice True: there is a claim of notability. But my original speedy tag was WP:CSD spam. The article actually ends with (I kid you not): "Please stay tuned for update on this." It's quite obvious that the article's author is either Richard Tate himself or a close associate. The material is unsourced and frankly unimpressive anyways. He sold his business for £106,000? Sure, I wouldn't mind getting that amount of cash but in the business world, it's not even a blip on the radar. The claim about the mention in the Daily Telegraph is bogus as far as I can tell from searching the paper's archive. Ditto for the purported "Business Magazine" mention. For one thing there is no such thing as "Business Magazine" though I suppose it could be the now defunct The Business (magazine). Note however that it doesn't make any sense for a magazine of repute to tip its hat to and recognize as "one of the UK's youngest businessman" a guy who at the time is 25 and has a haulage company worth peanuts. Note also the bizarre absence of even a name for the various companies he's supposed to have started and sold. I looked on Google for every possible combo of "Richard Tate" + Haulage + distribution + "David Lloyd" + Birmingham + business and there's nothing. This is either a joke or one badly self-delusional individual. Pichpich (talk) 01:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: actually, the original version of the article did mention the company's name. It's "Cockerill Distribution" and well... let's just say you should take a look at their website which can't even decide whether the company's name is Cockerill or Cockerille! . Pichpich (talk) 01:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe it should be deleted, but do you need to be so rude about it? the wub "?!"  11:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh... might not have been my finest hour but I have a hard time being nice with someone who abuses Wikipedia by writing his autobiography and peppering it with outright lies. Pichpich (talk) 09:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  11:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, per nom and Pichpich. With a common name like that google searching tends to produce a phonebook of hits. After doing various kinds of filtered googlenews searches I could not find any hits that are related to this particular Richard Tate. No references listed in the article itself. Fails WP:V and WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 03:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete People coming here looking for Richard Tate probably aren't looking for this guy. Jclemens (talk) 04:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 10:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - the original idenfication as spam was, in my opinion, correct. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete If it's false, it's a hoax. If it's true, it's spam and not particularly notable either. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:57, 6 October 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.