Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Gulbransen


 * 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.  Sandstein  16:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Scott Gulbransen

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is mainly a long advert, replete with inline external links. Many refs, most of them managing not to mention the subject.

There is possibly one ref showing a glimmer of notability, in adweek, but we cannot see the content. Is it advetorial? Who knows.

Of the rest, LA Raiders is a passing mention. Turbotax does not mention subject. Mediapost passing mention. Resteraunt news passing mention. PR news no mention. Forbes appears to be a blog; not WP:RS. Reuters events advetorial. NYT Who knows. Subscription only. BadleftHook no mention. Nevada press minor local award. google search wtf? SI.com passing mention. USA today passing mention. Reviewjournal.com no mention. This article is an advert for a PR person. Tagishsimon (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  21:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  21:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  21:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  21:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  21:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTRESUME and WP:TNT. This is plainly a resume, not an article, and needs more editing that normally processed. But even if it could be fixed, I don't see how the coverage is anywhere significant.Bearian (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Noms points appear valid, my search finds several passing mentions, nothing to meet WP:GNG Jeepday (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nom. Agree with the assessment of the references above, a boring trawl; the only one with any real substance was one of the HR Block, if I recall aright. This is a bit of a resume, come to think of it. No real notability here. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2021 (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.