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. Michig (talk) 08:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Idzkowski[edit]

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

An unremarkable entrepreneur; significant RS coverage cannot be found. What's available relates to subject's company, while notability is not WP:INHERITed. At best this could be redirected to Peekshare; but this article is at AfD, and it's not certain if would be retained: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peekshare. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this was interestingly removed by a uninvolved person in Georgia, yet I was clear and specific with my concerns, and also this is a paid-fpr article which makes matters worse in that it was essentially PR intended. Like with the company (which I also PRODed, but now removed thus AfD), it was clear PR and that alone so there is essentially no actual substance at all, and there would be any because both are not anywhere near significant therefore not acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 01:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Wikipedia is not a PR or advertisement platform, and articles created to treat it as such should be deleted unless there is a very strong case to keep them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom and above - David Gerard (talk) 09:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above. Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 12:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with above. MB 16:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only thing here that might be notable is Peekshare and, as already mentioned, it's at AFD too. The GeekWire reference is quite amusing. A techblog mention of the SkunkLock as one of the 10 most ridiculous startups? They may say that "no publicity is bad publicity" but I don't see being held up to ridicule as establishing notability. Meters (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with the comments above. Prowp (talk) 04:12, 9 October 2016 (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.