Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wesley Lambert


 * 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.  So Why  12:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Wesley Lambert

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Looks to be largely the product of original research, and though it has a lot of citations, all of them that I checked named the subject in passing (and often were Primary sources, which per WP:BASIC do not contribute to notability), or didn't name the subject at all. In many cases, the citations are nothing more than external links to the home pages of the named entities, and in no way document the subject's association with them or otherwise document ing the claims made in the text in the least. The level of personal detail (such as linking to his infant daughter's birth-announcement webpage, that doesn't even name the subject) and seemingly irrelevant celebrity photographs makes me think it might be a WP:PLUG/vanity page. Agricolae (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  00:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  00:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete its self promotion. If he is truly notable someone independant of him will write up a new page. Legacypac (talk) 02:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep the sources are all relevant to the individual. DarrylOwens (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * — DarrylOwens (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia on this, your first ever edit. Please note that passing reference does not established WP:NOTABILITY even if it is relevant, and that building an article based on such passing reference may constitute WP:Original Research, which is prohibited. Agricolae (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there evidence that the subject created the page or edited content? NormaMarkam (talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by NormaMarkam (talk • contribs)
 * — NormaMarkam (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And welcome to you as well, NormaMarkam, on your first ever contrinution to Wikipedia. Is there a reason you signed your contribution as DarrylOwens? Agricolae (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I coped and pasted from the last edit, my mistake:) still learning syntax NormaMarkam (talk 15:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Thanks for helping with my syntax, however, I must disagree with you WP:Original Research tag. Wikipedia seems to define Original Research as- The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] I have looked over the subject page and can see no evidence of facts, allegations, and ideas that are not reliably sourced. NormaMarkam (talk 15:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Taking a picture of a person with a celebrity, uploading that picture, then citing the picture as a source for the statement that the subject often hangs with celebrities - that is quintiscential Original Research. The list of organizations to which the subject belongs, that is all unsourced.  Original Research (unless it is outright invention). That he has a daughter, citing a page on the baby that doesn't name the parents?  That is original research.  When it says "Lambert sold his interests in Compound and moved to Thailand in 2006" it cites a news item that doesn't name Lambert and doesn't name Thailand.  That is Original Research.  When it says "Following a year break, Lambert moved to Sydney, Australia in 2007. Lambert met Kingsley Smith (founder of Kingsley's Restaurant Group) and formed & led the IPO" the cited source says nothing about a year off, nothing about moving to Sydney, nothing about meeting Kingsley Smith, and nothing about an leading an IPO.  When it says "Lambert is a Master's candidate at Harvard Extension School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pursuing a Masters of Liberal Arts in Extension Studies (ALM)- Management" it cites a page for the school program that doesn't name Lambert or what degree he is pursuing.  For a genealogical section I have since deleted, it actually cited an ancestry.com search result.  It says "After an injury to his eye ended his military career, Lambert earned a position as an Investment Banking analyst with SunTrust in the restaurant capital group. Following two years in the group, Lambert focused his recently acquired talents in hospitality analysis into the operations side of the hospitality industry. His career started as the General Manager at the Tongue & Groove nightclub in Atlanta in 2001." and the cited source says nothing about Lambert, nothing about an eye injury, nothing about him being an investment banker, nor SunTrust, nothing about spending two years in that role, nothing about talent or hospitality analysis, nothing about him being General Manager of Tongue & Groove.  I could go on. Rather than being documented, this article is just decorated, and amounts to a whole lot of unverifiable synthesis, in its entirety.  Agricolae (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * In Addition when I read about WP:PLUG I see that it may have been used out of context. I can see no evidence of Self Promotion, whose main underpinning is autobiographical references, which upon following each subject reference, I see none that are autobiographical in nature- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not
 * "Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest." NormaMarkam (talk 15:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't speak to who actually wrote the article, but given that the same editor who input most of the text also claims to have taken the pictures, all the way back to when he was in the service, and seems to know personal details not found in any of the sources, there is every appearance of WP:COI, particularly given the similarity between their User name and the eCommerce company the subject operates. (And I have yet to see 'look at all of the pictures of random person X with celebrities' presentations that don't originate with the subject of the photographs, or under their influence.)  Agricolae (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment NormaMarkam and DarrylOwens obviously have a connection to the subject and are connected to one another. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * NormaMarkham and DarrylOwens are ✅ socks. See Sockpuppet investigations/Thebitsyboutique.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Apart from the coi, socking, and obvious promo intent, this subject fails WP:GNG upon closer examination of sources. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * delete reeks of blatant self promotion. Perhaps the only claim to notability is being CFO. But that is of a non notable company.  LibStar (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2017 (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.