Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael C. Fenenbock
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. postdlf (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael C. Fenenbock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Obviously a case of WP:RESUME. No significant coverage by third-party independent media. Article creators RFIPR and Gjasper are single-purpose accounts. Overall pretty fishy. bender235 (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is well sourced and it is eligible for the notability guidelines. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tell me, what reliable sources are referenced in this article? All I see is two YnetNews op-eds [1] [2] which the subject wrote himself, a LA Times article [3] that does not mention Fenenbock, and a PBS article [4] that does not mention Fenenbock. Other than that (which in itself is nothing already) the article only refers to unreliable sources, including Fenenbocks own company website [5]. So again, please tell me how on Earth do you consider this article "well sourced"? --bender235 (talk) 10:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have a very good explanation but I should say well-referenced otherwise I'll say delete. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 12:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tell me, what reliable sources are referenced in this article? All I see is two YnetNews op-eds [1] [2] which the subject wrote himself, a LA Times article [3] that does not mention Fenenbock, and a PBS article [4] that does not mention Fenenbock. Other than that (which in itself is nothing already) the article only refers to unreliable sources, including Fenenbocks own company website [5]. So again, please tell me how on Earth do you consider this article "well sourced"? --bender235 (talk) 10:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom, PROMO, EBY (talk) 04:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 00:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 01:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - None of the sources I've found are actually reliable - just a list of unusable lists. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 06:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
