Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cornelius Williams

:{{la|Cornelius Williams}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Cornelius Williams}})

Unsourced, not MOS, sounds like a job resume. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Autobio. No attempt made to supply any evidence. — RHaworth {{toolbar|separator=dot|talk | contribs }} 11:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Note:Marking for speedy deletion under notability..Jasper Deng (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete In that LINK at the bottom of the article, Williams gets one mention. I quote it here to save people time: "Urban Water Supply Project (Cr. 2702-SL) - Final Supervision Report , Cornelius A.H. Williams, Consultant, August 28, 2002". This is in Annex 7, a list of other documents. I feel that "SIERRA LEONE URBAN WATER SUPPLY Funded By The World Bank through Cornelius Williams" is, shall we say, a little strong. This is, however, one of the better of the 'references'. Most of the others are links to Facebook, or to Wikipedia, or are to the home page of the organisation mentioned rather than to a page showing that he has had some connection with them. His great works in the field of 'literature' don't appear to be available through Amazon - which is a test I often apply. Actually being listed there is no great deal - they'll list almost anything. Not being sold there is a sure-fire indicator either of lack of notability, or of an extremely limited market, such as being sold only at meetings. The company Suilen Roc Industrial Management has eight ghits - two Wikipedia, one Facebook, one Appspot and the rest LinkedIn. Peridon (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delete as unsourced BLP unless real sources turn up. Hairhorn (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete this utterly non-notable piece of self-hyping WP:SPAM. Qworty (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

: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.