Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristan Loraine


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Tristan Loraine

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

Seems to be self-promotion for a chap who has written a book about something called "aerotoxic syndrome". We don't have an article for that yet but does seem to be a real thing (see for example this news article), and it has been turned into a documentary. However I'm not convinced that Mr. Loraine is quite notable enough to need an article yet. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   20:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is a tricky one. There is no doubting the self promotional nature of the article. Other articles worth reading include GCAQE, 31 North 62 East, Welcome Aboard Toxic Airlines. Users involved in editing these articles all seem to display a conflict of interest from their usernames, such as User:FNFFSFTS (which I presume stands for "Fact not fiction films shadows from the sky"), User:GCAQE, and User:DFTEnterprises (the company of that name operates from the same address as the film company, which is also the address for GCAQE). So, there appear to be a few users all creating and editing articles associated with Tristan Loraine, and all of whom seem to have conflicts of interest. However, there does appear to be some reasonable sources of this person/organisations/films:, , , , , etc. I don't really know what the best cause of action is. My own take is that they are promotional in nature (GCAQE claim to represent half a million airline workers, but I bet they don't know about it). There doesn't seem to have been much work done by other editors to these articles, so I wouldn't particularly object if they were all deleted and were started from scratch if someone wanted to. Quantpole (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability not established. لenna  vecia  15:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete not over the threshold - Vartanza (talk) 03:47, 16 June 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.