Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert S. Nelson


 * 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   speedy deleted by Dank, CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Robert S. Nelson

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

Very promotional in tone and lacks sufficient references to claims. The April 19, 1996 New York Times reference does mention this person as does the Daily News reference, but all others focus on the company he works for, dont mention him at all or are primary sources. Claims of notability are not sufficiently referenced. Also, I find it interesting that this article was created as a copy and paste duplicate of his bio on the company website which conveniently has a CC license notice at the bottom, saving it from previous speedy deletion for copyright violation. RadioFan (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - biospam for non-notable businessman, apparently planted by his press agent. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment the creator of this article was blocked indefinitely for a username violation. I'm pretty sure that creative commons license showed up on the page after the article was nominated for speedy deletion for copyright concerns.  I guess it was easier than rewriting this spam for Wikipedia.--RadioFan (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * G11; agreed with RadioFan's and OrangeMike's rationales. It was a good call to bring it to AfD, but I'm comfortable deleting if we get consensus here for speedy. - Dank (push to talk) 20:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Go Dank is what I say. – B.hotep •talk• 20:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete not notable. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleted. This looks like consensus to speedy delete per G11 to me, and I have made it so.  If a 6th person who hasn't been involved so far would like to concur and close, that will be even better, or if you disagree, let me know, please. - Dank (push to talk) 19:43, 10 July 2009 (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.