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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Crawford[edit]

Scott Crawford (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)

• Please note: that there was a previous AFD for this title but it seems the previous article was about another person who happened to have the same name.

I started looking at this with an eye toward fixing it up, and came to the conclusion that it is probably not worth the effort. Most of the article is blatantly about how great this guy and his company are, the sources are either the company itself or obvious reprints of PR materials, indeed two of the sources are word-for-word identical. I don't think this person is notable in the Wikiepdia sense of the word, and even if he was this article is hopelessly spammy, having been created by a user with an obvious conflict of interest. I have tried to counsel them about it but they seem convinced that the obvious promotion in this article is actually neutral, objective reporting. Much of the article is more about the programs he invented or whatever than about the actual person who is supposedly the subject, contributing to the appearance that this is mainly intended to promote these services, as opposed to being a neutral article on a notable subject. There may be a case, if the claims in the article are true, for an article on these programs, but the guy behind them does not seem to be the focus of significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - despite some clean up the article is still promotional, reading like an unsourced CV about Crawford, as well as plugs for his companies. The artilce is evidently written by someone associated with his company, SOMA Get Fit. I can't see any significant secondary coverage about Crawford to enable him to meet WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone is a little confused. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No not in the slightest he played for a least 4 different clubs hence the Sportspeople & Football delsorts. Cheers ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This does seem to feel self-written, promotional material and the fact that Somagetfit wrote much of it, it does feel like a confict of interest here. That and the fact it doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails the notability test. Once the spam, promotional and CV material is removed there's nothing left to suggest this individual should be included in WP. QuiteUnusual ^TalkQu 10:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable promotional spam. GregJackP Boomer! 13:31, 31 January 2013 (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.