Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William A Mobley


 * 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. The "keep" opinions are mostly based on the article existing for a long time, which is not a valid argument in the face of a failure to meet WP:N, which nobody really contests.  Sandstein  08:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

William A Mobley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails wp:n CerealKillerYum (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, no assertion of notability sufficient to pass WP:N. While there are sources, they are somewhat low-quality and, much more importantly, they don't really focus on Mobley himself.  As an aside, note that this page has been edited by one of the paid users referenced in Sockpuppet_investigations/Carriearchdale; though this page's age means it is unlikely to have been created by that particular user, it was created by someone who created this page and nothing else, despite showing significant knowledge of how the wiki works.  This, in combination with its promotional tone, suggests that it may have been created by an earlier iteration of paid editors for promotional purposes.   --Aquillion (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep but re-write I guess the page is old and was actually created on 5 August 2009. According to this Wiki policy Proposed deletion of biographies of living people, : "Biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, without any sources (reliable or unreliable) or links to support the claims made in the article may be proposed for deletion and will be deleted unless at least one reliable source is added." Since this page is created in 2009, I believe the issue raised in the quoted policy doesn't apply to it. Having said that, I suggest, the page should be kept and possibility re-written" to suit the current wiki guidelines.  Deletion in this case should be a last resort per WP:FAILN. Kmoulder (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is arguing that WP:BLPPROD applies here. There are sources, so even if it was a newer article, it wouldn't apply. The relevant policies here are WP:GNG and WP:BIO. clpo13(talk) 21:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that User:Kmoulder has 12 edits, 8 of them are on the William A Mobley page or this AfD. CerealKillerYum (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete by all means as both nothing suggestive of independent notability and it's also advertising. SwisterTwister   talk  06:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep deleting would be a hasty decision as the article is old. However, obsolete/redundant/irrelevant references need to be removed and the content re-written accordingly by introducing relevant links.Split25 (talk) 06:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Because the article has been on Wikipedia for awhile doesn't mean it should stay on Wikipedia. That's why it's being considered for deletion. It'll have to meet WP:GNG from WP:RS to merit a wikipedia page. So far, there's been no counter arguments about how the subject is notable. As User:Aquillion said, the subject hired someone to write the page and that person knows how Wikipedia works. It is very probably that the same person is here sockpuppeting. The individuals who vote keep have a very similar edit history. If they were different users, they would edit different sections of the encyclopedia (ie one would spend more time editing music pages and the other would spend more time editing tech pages). Please take this into consideration when closing the debate reviewing Admin. Also, it should be noted that AfD is won by popularity. It is won by the best argument. Using more sock puppet accounts will be a waste of your time sockpuppeter/William A Mobley.CerealKillerYum (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Without doubt this page looks like a CV, however, it doesn't mean it cannot be rectified. Deleting at this point would be a little harsh considering the duration it has been up here: well before March 18, 2010 as pointed out by Kmoulder. I think the content and references can be improved. Curlzon (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   03:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - none of the sources are really about Mobley himself. The companies he's worked for & founded may be notable, but that doesn't make him notable. Blythwood (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep but someone at least have to remove the dead reference links and the non-notable ones. Slu tsu (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep/Rewrite Instead of deleting, this article need cleaning up to meet wikipedia guidelines for biographies. Promotional tone needs to be neutralized. Hampai 15 (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. There;s iothing notable enough to rewrite. He's worked at or founded   a large number of non-notable companies. I really do not se anything else.  DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- not enough independent coverage to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This fails GNG. The sources are hardly what I would call reliable sources. Simply being associated with a bunch of companies doesn't mean someone is notable. If the subject was really notable, there would be profiles in reliable newspapers. But I don't see any of them. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Btw, using undisclosed paid editors to vote keep is not cool. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:56, 7 August 2016 (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.