Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan Leipold


 * 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. ✗ plicit  23:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Stefan Leipold

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails sigcov and wp:bio. Previously deleted under a different name. References are primary. No coverage. Created by a UPE.  scope_creep Talk  16:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep see WP:BASIC and WP:CREATIVE. Has been significantly covered by Forbes Mexico, GQ Mexico and Excélsior TV. Ugochukwu75 (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Striking out !vote from a blocked sock master . Celestina007 (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note for whomever is deciding whether or not to delete: Ugochukwu75 has admitted to being a paid editor AND to operating sockpuppet accounts. Of course, they only admitted this AFTER they were blocked for doing those things. They denied it previously. Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The forbes reference, is his own work, the Mexico reference is an interview. I don't see the Excélsior TV ref, but what I do see is social media, blog posts, primary sources, his own writing used for sources, company site front pages. There is not 1 secondary source amongst the lot of them.   scope_creep Talk  18:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You indeed have a point. I had no idea that the Forbes articles were written by the subject. Sorry, my bad. Ugochukwu75 (talk) 09:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The links numbered; [|5], [|9], [|12] and [|13] are not primary links. Can you have a look at those please? Thanks Ugochukwu75 (talk) 11:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * #1 is a primary source. #2 is just a massive list of alumni where his name appears as one of thousands. #3 doesn't exist. #4 is another list, albeit a shorter one, of the nominees for some non-notable award. None of them carry any significance. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - sources are WP:PRIMARY/paid publicity pieces.KH-1 (talk) 04:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not only are the sources paid publicity pieces, but this follows the same pattern as another article that Ugochukwu75 was heavily involved in - the article for Donavon Warren (which has been deleted) also had a bunch of paid publicity sources. Seems pretty clear that this one should be deleted per the same rationale. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep some of the Forbes articles are his own work and some other not. In my mind by, , , alongside with other sources in article we can see significant coverages that demonstrate his notability. Brayan ocaner (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Very suspicious logic being used here, especially considering the paid editing of Ugochukwu75 above. #5 is a piece without a credited author from a non-notable website, and it reads very much like a self-written promotional publicity piece. #6 and #7 are both Forbes "contributor" pieces, which I have learned is not be trusted as a reliable source, per this guideline. Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Ref 7. It states Stefan Leipold also recommends that investors and entrepreneurs should increasingly outsource IT security issues, as in-house knowledge is very limited. with an image of Leipold would suggest it is not independent. He is being paid to offer advice as a consultant to the company. Ref 8 is an interview. Reference 9 is the profile intro to the story in reference 8 and is inconsequential really. Reference 8 is quite WP:PUFF. Both of the paid publicity by turns. There is no secondary sources here. More the type of adivice, i.e. your low-brow fare that designed more to highlight him, that to actually offer real advice. It is the equivalent of saying you should put petrol in your car if you want to drive it somehwere None of these 3 duds are secondary sources.    scope_creep Talk  12:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete — lack of in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Celestina007 (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, the damage done by previous creators, with wrong information, poor ethics and work, can this be fixed. the updated page is on everybodywiki, with links from intl. media etc. Thank you I appreciate the help and good explanations. thanks again Prosysco (talk) 06:18, 29 April 2022 (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.