Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John David Chapman

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John David Chapman

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable All sources I can find are from self published PR sources. Also article has been created by an editor who creates promotional articles for money. [1] Ridernyc (talk) 09:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Looking at the cited references, I see only the following: several dead links, company listing sites that do no more than list his name as a director, wrestling sites that do no more than list his name as a wrestler, other pages which do no more than include his name in a list, or otherwise give no more than a brief mention of him, pages that don't mention him at all, a page giving "PRWeb" as its source, blogs... This is a page crafted by a professional spammer who at first used to create obvious spam/non-notable articles, but who has now mastered such techniques as packing articles with large numbers of useless references to make it look as though there are sources, and toning down the promotion enough to evade G11 speedy deletion. However, careful checking shows that there is no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have considered carefully the arguments presented by JBW above and after conducting a number of searches, and examining the links, can find nothing which would support a claim to notability within the terms of WP:GNG ---- _nonsense ferret 23:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything other than promotional stuff. If he was notably involved in the Leveson Inquiry, it should go in that article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William 20:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - dead links, blogs, shop talk. No. Bearian (talk) 23:53, 29 January 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.