Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Taee

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. Closing as delete, noting that there are three socks in this discussion. Throwing them out leaves a clear consensus to delete and salt Courcelles (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Taee

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

Promotional biography that lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources and was declined at AfC by SwisterTwister. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Non-notable & obviously promotional biography. I cannot see any significant change since it was declined at AfC. Delete. --Jack Frost (talk) 04:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from the weakness of the sourcing, I'm not even seeing much of a claim to significance. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There have been a number of changes since deletion at AfC, including significant removal of previous content and further referencing. As I understand things, unless a nominator is sure an article does not meet criteria, they should refrain from nominating them. Please advise steps to improve article. Dialbox2016 (talk) 08:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC) — Dialbox2016 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Do not agree. This article should not be deleted. It demonstrates sufficient notability since it was last declined at Afc, does not demonstrate conflict of interest or bias and demonstrates notable links to other pages ie. Wikipedia page: Bishopgate School - Andrew Taee for the articles inclusion to be justified. Gobbledegoop21 (talk) 08:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)— Gobbledegoop21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment I have moved the AFC submission tags included by the above editors to the talk page for clarity. Domdeparis (talk) 09:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, the COI creator of this article has removed negative sourced information and added non-encyclopedic vanity information. Oddly enough a new user who has never edited before has arrived to !vote keep. I strongly suggest salting this subject as the creators and the various SPA editors refuse to respect or do not understand the AfC process. Domdeparis (talk) 09:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator can not assume that I have any COI without appropriate demonstration. I am merely commenting on an article, which is my right to do, that I believe demonstrates an individual of notability and persons of similar experience and factual content have been approved. Once again, I am perfectly entitled to make my opinion on the page known without accusations being thrown at me. Therefore I believe that this article, if need be with further improvement, should remain in place. Gobbledegoop21 (talk) 10:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi @Gobbledegoop21: you seem to be a bit confused by my remark (and BTW I am not the nominator). I said the creator of the article has a COI as he has declared working for Dial partners which was founded by Taee, this is not wrong at all just difficult to manage and discouraged. I think you do not understand the Wikipedia definition of COI and it would help you to read WP:COI. Your user account was created very recently and for the moment is a single purpose account and once again this is not wrong so there is no accusation being made but this is the only article on which you have worked. I am not accusing you of being a WP:SOCKPUPPET or a WP:MEATPUPPET but I would suggest you click on the 2 links to understand what they are. The opinion of an editor that votes to keep an article just after his account was created and makes no edits outside of this deletion discussion is less likely to be taken into consideration with the same weight as another editor that is not limited to the subject in question but you are 100% right you are entitled to make your opinion on this page ...or any other for that matter but please don't be surprised or offended if it is not followed, this is not a vote but a discussion so 1 delete comment which is well presented will always be taken more seriously than any number of keep comments from SPA editors unless their arguments are valid. Domdeparis (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Wikipedia is not a vanity sight where one can use their resources directly to create an article, and even more so attempting to control what is and is not said in an article on oneself is not acceptable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article demonstrates an individual of notability, demonstrates a 35 year career in Corporate Finance and charity work. The article also includes negative experiences, for example being removed as CEO of Crestacare. A self promoting article would not include information of this sort. Therefore I recommend that this article not be deleted. Bolton 28 (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)— Bolton 28 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.