Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seal-Bin Han


 * 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Seal-Bin Han

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Questionable notability and significance, and I think there may be an attempt to protect the article with a sock/meat puppet - both and  are very new accounts that seem to have a very vested interest in this particular article, so I'd be interested in observing there behavior here before moving to deciding whether or not to move this over to WP:SPI. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

If you feel that this article does not meet the standards of notability and significant, then it is fair to remove it. However, I will assert that I am not associated with user Sinan and am willing to prove that in whatever way necessary. Wrecklessasian (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Firstly I would like to state that I am giving my concern as per Wikipedia guidelines. Secondly I found two notable links for the subject. Both are from The Huffington Post. More media links should be used to establish notability of the subject. If the subject fails the notability criteria then the article should surely be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hethershecim (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Looking at those sources only contributes to my notion that this article is enjoying some kind of circular support. The author of both articles is Jim Luce, and each article reads like an advertisement for his foundation. Furthermore, Seal-Bin Han's only notability appears to be thanks to Luce's 'mentorship' (as it is written in the article). Han's significance seems frankly questionable at best and I agree with TomStar81 that it seems like the article's original author has a mysteriously high interest in the article's existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.159.83 (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems notable for his entrepreneurship, not for scholarship. — Brianhe (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets the standards for notable in terms of entrepreneurship and is adequately cited by reliable sources, i.e. The Huffington Post, The Baltimore Sun, Technically Baltimore, and Hamptons.com. Will try to find more sources in the following days in order to improve article. — Wrecklessasian (talk) 04:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)