Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arleen Taveras

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. -- Cirt (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arleen Taveras

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

Fails to show notability. There are several references, but not all of them mention the person, and those that do are either trivial mentions or primary sources such as press releases. The primary claim to notability is the award she has won, but being named Woman of the Year by the Groesbeck Chapter of the Business & Professional Women is not sufficient. The creator of this article has also created the article about the subject's company, which is also up for AfD for lack of notability; that article was created for payment and it is more than likely that this article was, too - which doesn't mean that the articles should automatically be deleted, but when there is paid editing involved the notability of the subject needs to be shown very clearly indeed, which isn't the case here. bonadea contributions talk 12:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I originally thought that this article might be notable, so I staved off AfDing it. Now I know someone else shares my concerns, I'm comfortable in recommending deletion for the same reasons as the nominator. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this walled garden of WP:SPAM. Also adding Ted Taveras to the nomination. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are a series of related AfD's going on, created by the same group of users: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insurance Licensing Services of America, Inc. (which the nom mentioned) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archimedes, Inc.. User:Danieldis47 and User:Etalssrs seem to be "associates". --res Laozi speak 04:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bonadea is exactly right. There's no evidence to indicate that any of these articles are notable by WP:BIO or WP:ORG standards.--res Laozi speak 05:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local coverage in small town Texas does not count. Racepacket (talk) 13:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Ted and Arleen. Neither of them meets the Wikipedia bar for notability. Should someone call this little garden of PR to Jimmy Wales' attention? Hasn't he come out strongly (as an individual) against paid editing? --MelanieN (talk) 15:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I see that one of the spammers (User:Danieldis47) has already been blocked indefinitely as an advertising-only account. However, the colleague, User:Etalssrs, has picked up the baton and is writing an article at his/her talk page about Dr. David Eddy - apparently to replace Danieldis47's Archimedes Inc. page when it gets likely deleted. Danieldis47 was also working on that article (seems rather unusual for a user to work on an article on another user's talk page) until he/she was banned. --MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - fail WP:BIO - sources do not amount to the significant coverage required; spammy ukexpat (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a delete !vote for Ted Taveras as well. When I first looked at the article I thought he might have been slightly more notable, but having looked closer and seen the lack of sources, I strongly feel that the Ted Taveras article also lacks a credible claim to notability. --bonadea contributions talk 22:02, 16 November 2010 (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.