Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Henthorn

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 not delete. Please work out redirection on the talk pages -- Y not? 16:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barry Henthorn

Barry Henthorn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No independent references, and therefore fails to estabish notability. Clearly written by somebody with an interest in the subject; check out their other contributions here and consider whether they might fail the same test. Chris 21:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. changed to Delete. Looks like created as spam, but I added a source for the NCAA Jamal Crawford controversy (I didn't add a DUI as I don't know if it's the same guy). The press does describe him as a "communications mogul" and an industry expert (sample) so a clean-ed up version could potentially pass notability. Canuckle 21:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• comment All WP articles are written by people with an interest in the subject. That's not a reason for particular suspicion. AGF. DGG 23:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • another comment That's interest as in vested or conflict of Chris 08:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Canuckle 16:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletions. -- Canuckle 20:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wafulz 21:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Reeltime.com. There's not really much content here, and what little there is is written poorly and feels aggrandized. Examples: He is apparently a pioneer in his field, has unspecified-but-worth-mentioning achievements in it, and contributes "a fresh viewpoint and vision towards the future".-Wafulz 21:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The entire Career section is a copy-and-paste from his corporate bio at [1] Canuckle 18:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per User:Wafulz suggestion. --David Andreas 23:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP very weak. needs to be rewritten Callelinea 20:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Has at least a little bit of non-self-serving and notable information on it that may be of interest. By the way, I strenuously disagree with the suggestion to redirect to Reeltime.com, since merging the articles would result in off-topic material on the Reeltime.com article. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 11:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keap, poorly written, needs more sources, but he seams to be notable. Callelinea 15:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I changed my vote above to delete. No new, strong evidence has been provided to bolster his business notability and I'm too tired of fighting the spammer to continue. Salt it. Canuckle 23:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • FYI - Creator had changed and deleted AfD tag so I put it back on and reported them to admin. Canuckle 00:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Salting will not help. There are several other articles that that particular editor has continued to spam similar material on, and salting this article will simply move his efforts to those articles. By the way, I have reverted the article back to my most recent edit, in which I attempted to rectify some of the more serious problems with the article. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 17:45, 30 June 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.