Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2023/Steve Haddadin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to  Delete. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 12:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Haddadin

Steve Haddadin (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

RiggedMint has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Written like an advert, fails WP:GNG. Sources look to have self-promotion. RiggedMint 18:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

* Keep Keep, widely published. As noted earlier, he sources Readers digest, Fullerton (an education institution), and Ok magazine (staff written) seem to be reliable sources per the GNG guidelines. Bonvoyambassador (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are they independent of the subject? RiggedMint 17:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Does independent of the subject require the page is not maintained exclusively by the subject?
    "Wikipedia articles are generally written based on in-depth, independent, reliable sourcing with some subject-specific exceptions." per subject specific notability guidelines
    It is unlikely an article about an un-noteworthy subject's birthday being national waygu day is sufficient to meet the independent reliable sourcing standard. ManThatIsActually511 (talk) 14:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The contention here is over source selection; you've cherry-picked a single sentence from the article. The subject is a significant real estate figure who founded a holiday, and the sources meet GNG. Your comments and activity suggest a personal bias against this individual, indicated by your admission of knowing them by your comment “I have stood next to him”, hinting at envy. Continued spamming or vandalism will lead to a block. Bonvoyambassador (talk) Bonvoyambassador (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability strongly prefers "recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally."
    Sources provided in this article are OKmagazine, written by OKmagazine staff, lacking a named author. Further it lacks any cites for its for its assertion.
    The same can be said for the Reader's Digest article. Are we to believe that the best and brightest minds at OKmagazine and Reader's Digest worked tirelessly on these articles? Or is it more likely that the subject commissioned these articles?
    Generally speaking, wikipedia articles should be reserved for noteworthy political figures, people that have made historical accomplishments in their field, coaches of athletic programs, etc.
    Note everyone with a college degree deserves a wikipedia page. "No subject is automatically or inherently merely because it exists" per WP:NRVE. Personal accomplishments like that should be limited to a resume or a social media page.
    Wikipedia is supposed to a compendium of human knowledge and history, curated by people that care. Shameless self-promotion should be taken elsewhere. ManThatIsActually511 (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your emphasis on sourcing and notability within the Wikipedia framework is valid. However, while OKmagazine and Reader's Digest are recognized sources, suspicions of commissioned content need solid backing, such as a promotional tone or explicit disclosures like "sponsored" or "paid for" tags which these platforms do have, but not in this case. None of these tags are on these sources. Regarding OK staff written, articles written by their staff are considered credible contributions from the publication as a whole.
    Regarding Wikipedia's notability criteria you referenced, it indeed focuses on individuals with significant contributions in various realms. Notability guidelines highlight that notability is based on significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. These sources may include peer-reviewed publications, credible books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources. The sources referenced as mentioned above are peer reviewed and reliable and your accusations are without evidence. Notability also extends beyond the article sources. It's worth noting that the subject in question has a broader range of notability, evidenced through TV interviews and other media indexing, which extends beyond personal achievements mentioned in these articles.
    Your reference to personal interaction with the subject ("I have stood next to him") and the recent creation of your user account will be perceived as bias, affecting your objectivity. Wikipedia prioritizes neutral, unbiased editing. Without strong evidence, any claims about the nature of the sources or biases should be approached cautiously. Bonvoyambassador (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your account is only one day older than mine.
    Yours only currently exists because your previous accounts were banned. It's obvious that you are Steve Haddadin, editing this page. How can you be objective? ManThatIsActually511 (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These are baseless accusations, but you have referenced standing next to subject. Bonvoyambassador (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are produced independently by the source on the subject not by the subject as an ad as per GNG guidelines. Bonvoyambassador (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

^Spam user

  • Agreed.

Bonvoyambassador (talk) 5:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

* Keep Keep, the issue with written like an advert appears to be addressed by the edits. Subject meets the GNG guidelines. The remaining issue that is open is the article reliability. They are credible and meet the WP:NRVE guidelines. Bonvoybrilliant (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources Readers digest, Fullerton (an education institution), and Ok magazine (staff written) seem to be reliable sources per the GNG guidelines.

  •  Delete Article appears to only be for self-promotion purpose.--Tsugaru let's talk! :) 22:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Delete. All supporters have the word "bonvoy" in them, and MasonCharms was recently registered. Sockpuppetry. dotdashmeredith (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This doesn't relate to the issue of the article. The bonvoy is a coincidence and this is just an accusation. New users are considered in the debate, you are also a new user by the way. Bonvoybrilliant (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Coincidence that both try to protect the article and abuse RfD with multiple accounts? Seems like smack to me... RiggedMint 13:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No evidence of that. I have the bonvoy brilliant credit card and I made my username after that. I read the policy and it says an admin can see the IP address. Let it be stated on the record that I am not affiliated with any of the other accounts. What seems like smack to me is your allegations that do not cite any policy or evidence. Bonvoybrilliant (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:DUCK. You have the same grammar as the other bonvoy account. Named after the same account with the same formatting (e.g. Uppercasewordlowercaseword). You also were registered with 2 other accounts on the same day (same as the previous accounts). I have reason to think you are using multiple accounts to gain more consensus over others. RiggedMint 19:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, no. Not registered on the same day, but 2 other accounts were registered on the same day. You were also registered on the same day the accounts were blocked. RiggedMint 19:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep Keep. Looks notable. Dontjeffitup (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 18:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion/Requests/2023/Steve_Haddadin&oldid=9248044"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2023/Steve Haddadin, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.