Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim D. Keanini


 * 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. Tone 17:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Tim D. Keanini

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Articles were previously deleted via G11 but that deletion was overturned at DRV following discussion; see Deletion review/Log/2009 November 16. This is a procedural nomination and I am not making any statement as to the content of these articles but will reiterate concerns voiced previously that these articles are primarily promotional in nature and do not satisfy inclusion guidelines for biographies. Shereth 18:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, whoever wrote these appears to know nothing about WP:RS, and I think it's clear they both fail WP:BIO. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete these pages as yet another bad-faith attempt by nCircle to abuse Wikipedia for their own promotional purposes. The user (RPelton) who created these has already been identified and banned from Wikipedia editing for being an nCircle shill. RPelton's previous article on nCircle itself has already been deleted for failing to achieve WP:N. These two new articles on Ncircle employees are even worse in that respect. Sfba (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete lots of people who work in technology get quoted in trade rags. that doesn't mean they're notable; it means they have a PR firm or reporter friends. WP:N says the reliable sources in an article need to cover the person significantly and directly, and a magazine isn't covering a guy directly just because they quoted him and 4 other people. KateSelik (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as de-puffed. Collect (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note the new lack of nCircle material in them, removal of blogs as sources, etc. Collect (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per KateSelik. Toddst1 (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as although the sources can be verified and the article content is no longer openly promotional, it still lacks of any signficant coverage or claim to notability for these individuals, just mentions in passing. Notability to come, perhaps. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:08, 27 November 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.