Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronald Barkley
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. Singularity 17:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ronald Barkley
Been three days since the creation of the article, and no notability has been established. Google doesn't come up with anything substantial, nor does Google news. BuddingJournalist 06:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like self-bio, candidate for speedy deletion.Helixweb (talk) 06:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, no attribution of notability outside of his candidacy to independent sources. Fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 07:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails notability guidelines for politicians [1] Qworty (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- NOTE: Not sure what to do with this, but the subject of the article appears to be writing it. See here. I started a discussion here; however, I don't really have experience with COI reports, so I hope that's right. As to the article, I am not sure on notability or not, but the article is written in the "first person"?! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up on those concerns. I've warned him on his user page and have tagged the article for WP:AUTO and WP:COI. He also created all kinds of spamlinks which I've removed from a variety of pages--including the disambiguation page for the name "Ronald," as though he is one of the most famous Ronalds who ever lived! A lot of these associated edits are highly suspicious, and he might be editing under as many as three socks and several ISPs. This is precisely the kind of self-serving stuff that should be scraped from the project and forever salted. I particularly don't care for this variety of aggressive spam. It takes a lot of effort to clean it up. Qworty (talk) 07:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Happy to help. Incidentally, the article could have encyclopedic value, i.e. if wins and becomes a congressman, then surely reliable sources will be readily available as congressmen do tend to be covered in the news, but we definitely cannot have first person biographies as articles. I suppose he could have a condenses version on his userpage, perhaps. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up on those concerns. I've warned him on his user page and have tagged the article for WP:AUTO and WP:COI. He also created all kinds of spamlinks which I've removed from a variety of pages--including the disambiguation page for the name "Ronald," as though he is one of the most famous Ronalds who ever lived! A lot of these associated edits are highly suspicious, and he might be editing under as many as three socks and several ISPs. This is precisely the kind of self-serving stuff that should be scraped from the project and forever salted. I particularly don't care for this variety of aggressive spam. It takes a lot of effort to clean it up. Qworty (talk) 07:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. If he had been widely commented upon in the press, that might confer notability under WP:BIO. The article at present has no sources at all. Since there is an apparent conflict of interest, that gives us less reason to take the situation on faith. EdJohnston (talk) 04:04, 10 April 2008 (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.
