Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Layfield

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) 16:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Layfield

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

The article has previously been deleted by the user RHaworth, 17 March 2011, and I think it should be deleted again because the same problems exist - the article is not neutrally written and does not in my opinion live up to the wikipedia criteria for notability Thelle Kristensen 13:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a speedy for re-creation , because the previous version was a speedy G11, and the deleting admin decided to allow re-creation. But altho it now passes speedy, it remains too promotional and the notability is too borderline. Somewhat promotional articles with serious notability can be improved, and are therefore worth keeping, But when the notability is as borderline as this, it isn't worth it. Despite the attention given to it, it remains PR hype t. All the "awards' mentioned are awards for people who are not yet really notable--even the who's who listed is a 2nd tier for those who don't make it into the regular.all the business accomplishments mentioned were made by concerns he wasn't in charge of, but just worked for. Anything innovated he may have done, has not yet succeeded. The reputable sources are about general lines of business, and use him only as a convenient, not notable example. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 6 September 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is clearly a COI article. Wikipedia is not a soap box. Unfortunately the neutrality problems are not going away so I recommend that once the term of AFD is done this be deleted once again. BO | Talk 17:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Guardian Group in particular does seem to have featured him heavily in 2004, with two interviews ([1], [2]) and quotation in two more articles ([3], [4]). And then the larger feature this year. But I'm unconvinced that this amounts to notability. AllyD (talk) 20:45, 6 September 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.