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. MBisanz ^talk 13:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Beurle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article existing again now that the PROD was contested with the basis of improvements but this itself is not improvable because it's a blatant advertisement and it therefore violates policy WP:NOT, and there's absolutely nothing here to suggest it's anything else but a PR business listing, also itself violating WP:NOT. The history itself shows this had never actually changed so it's not surprising someone contests it only after it's finally been deleted (also note how there's clear persistent advertising in the history). SwisterTwister talk 04:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the initial nominator. My rationale for the PROD was "Fails the WP:GNG. None of the third-party sources listed actually cover Beurle, he is only mentioned tangentially. Article is largely promotional and its creator quite has a quite obvious conflict of interest." IgnorantArmies (talk) 05:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete it looks blatantly self promotional. Being a CEO of a non notable company is not a claim for notability. LibStar (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to draft Yes the article reeks of promotion, and the list of external links is a bit of give away and one of the references being a resume. And the article is almost entirely generated by a SPA. And if this was about the person rather than promoting the person, then it would also mention their partner Celine? However, a few quick searches shows the person is at least mentioned multiple times internationally, and they do seem to have sufficient secondary references if you go looking to possibly support notability, so I suggest the the article be moved over to draft, where the SPA can be mentored into generating a more balanced and less promotional article. (They have put a bit of work into it.) Aoziwe (talk) 10:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The concerns about that is the sheer blatancy of misusing and misunderstanding us as a PR webhost, I'm not confident someone can make a Draft with such a mindset and then not advertise (worse if it's paid advertising). SwisterTwister talk 16:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any and all suggestions on how to edit / improve the article to be within acceptable policies would be much appreciated. User:mrassel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete an overly promotional article with no clear signs of true notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:11, 12 December 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.