Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Fendelman

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Fendelman

Adam Fendelman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This self-promotional article was recreated after a Speedy Deletion by a suspected sock of the subject of the article, see here. The subject was himself the author of the first incarnation of this article, and the content this time is substantively identical to the prior version, as best I can recall. The subject's particular notability fails when it's seen that he works for a small start-up company which posts up press releases from companies for pay, and maintains a film news in Chicago site which he had spammed all over wikipedia, until editors noted and stopped his actions, at which time he started socking. SInce then, it appears he's begun to freely contribute to Rotten Tomatoes, using the 'credibility' from that to validate his own site, and by extension his article. ThuranX 03:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and, if this behavior continues, salt. An "accredited" film critic? humblefool® 04:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - POV, and I smell another sock puppet... Zchris87v 05:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete speedy, if this is a recreation of deleted material then it's a CSD G4, speedy delete & salt. Pete.Hurd 06:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - POV, NN, agree with above delete comments. Iamchrisryan 10:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete due to failure to establish notability per Wikipedia's standards, not to mention the severe conflict of interest that has compelled the editor to constantly dodge consensus to exclude his information. I would suggest extending the favor of deletion to HollywoodChicago.com as well. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Sc straker 17:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and add a dash of salt. RFerreira 20:36, 7 October 2007 (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.