Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Williams (marketer)

:{{la|Pete Williams (marketer)}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pete_Williams_(marketer) Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Pete Williams (marketer)}})

Seemingly WP:PROMOTIONAL BP with lack of RS. Independent search finds no better sources. DarjeelingTea (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Strong delete blatant self promotional if I ever saw it. Created by a single edit user with a whole lot of non notable achievements. LibStar (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
• Delete, promotional. Blackguard 21:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Keep The individual seems to be quite a recognized figure and have been featured on a few newspapers. The content might not be detailed enough, but I believe it still deserves a chance. --Dotcommastermind (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Strong keep Clearly the article needs to be worked on but still deserves to be kept Diondodds (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

— Diondodds (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

:: as a new user how did you find this AfD? LibStar (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• I've a registered account since March 2016 but I rarely post or edit anything here as I'm mainly using Wikipedia for my college research assignments. I came across this page under Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Businesspeople Diondodds (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
• Delete- This is a blatant advertisement, filled with over-the-top promotional talk. It's been cynically stuffed with dubious sources to insignificant factoids to make it look properly sourced. Wikipedia really does need better mechanisms to defend itself from being used as a billboard. Reyk _YO! 23:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.