Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shannon Register

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Register

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

A real estate broker who has been in the business for four years. She founded her own firm two years ago. Article says, "Her innovative business model won her national, state, and local acclaim" The national ref is an interview, state ref doesn't mention her and the local ref magazine allows people to pay to get an article about themselves or company. Article is nothing but an advertisement. Bgwhite (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the notes from the nominator about the references seem accurate. The whole thing is written like an advertisement and it's not hard to see why - the original author is User:Mattregister - coincidentally, the name of the subject's spouse. I'm struggling to see where the assertion of notability is... my main concerns come back to the fact that Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. Stalwart111 (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The fact that the spouse wrote it does not mean it needs to be deleted. As far as the references, this was not a paid honor. The magazine offers vendors the opportunity to put ads in the magazine, not the agents. There is a committee of 24 that picks the cover agent. The national association of realtors article was an article that went to every agent in the country about a "stand out" broker. As far as the state reference, fair enough, they didn't put it online. That link is as close as I could find. She is a media personality and rapidly rising industry fixture. Please don't delete and move on.mattregister (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.201.200.50 (talk) [reply]

Have changed your vote to Keep for the sake of consistency and counter-bot-things. To be considered "notable" and thus appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia, a subject must meet the criteria outlined at WP:GNG. That fact that an article was created by someone with a very strong conflict of interest (see WP:COI) does not mean it should automatically be deleted, but conflict of interest editing is always strongly discouraged for a range of reasons (see WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, WP:OR and WP:PROUD). Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to advertise your expertise in a particular field (see WP:PROMO). Notability must be verified by independent reliable sources. The argument goes that if a subject was truly notable, one of the many thousands of regular editors here would have been prompted by overwhelming reliable sources to write an article. That is not always the case, and we do have the Articles for Creation system as a back-up. Would strongly suggest you have a read of most (if not all) of the policies above and make your argument on the basis of policy, backed up by multiple reliable independent sources that meet WP:GNG. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal Keep but needs a massive rewrite to eliminate the COI. If it can't pass with a rewrite then delete it. --MrRadioGuy P T C E 18:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No WP:RS whatsoever to indicate notability. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and just about any relevant policy you care to name. Her husband freely admits he typed up the article himself. He also created an article about his wife's real-estate office [1] that was speedily and appropriately deleted. I don't know what gets into these people's heads, thinking that Wikipedia is a free web-hosting service for their WP:PROMO efforts. Why don't they just go out and spend the cash to get their own website? Qworty (talk) 06:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find a single independent, reliable source on this person, and certainly nothing that rises to significant coverage under WP:GNG. --Batard0 (talk) 07:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the "competent professional" rule, which probably exists somewhere on here -- but basically the idea is that just being a highly competent professional does not qualify you for a wikipedia article. The self-worth of the individual is not at issue, its just a fact that most competent and successful people (top 10 lawyer in Croatia, top 10 doctor in Kansas City, etc.) won't meet WP:GNG, unless sourcing proves it.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article with no significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. A search for news articles doesn't bring up anything about the real estate agent. The subject does not meet the general notability guideline.--xanchester (t) 17:21, 24 October 2012 (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.