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 no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Chen[edit]

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

An advertisement consisting of advertised information about his career, achievements and other business-focused events of his life, the sources themselves consist of sources that never actually mention him (TheGuardian and WIRED) and then also questionable sources that are from "special contributor users" (Entrepreneur) and then others that largely consist of only interviewed and company-businessman quotes, none of that is therefore independent of the man and his company or substantially significant for notability. Because of these concerns, this should not have been accepted from AfC especially given that (1) not only was it declined multiple times by different established reviewers but also then (2) only one account has focused with this heavily including by ultimately putting the largest PR contents of all. It is also concerning when an article, again, not only goes to specify and list everything there is to advertise about him and the company, but then to actually list his patents....

There is no inherited notability from simply having listed news sources, which seems to be an influence here, and then there's also no inheritance from having attention because of other people or companies; with this said, my own searches are then finding other news articles but they are simply either local PR interviews and advertisements, trivial mentions, company and business plans and other non-focused materials. We should not accept such PR business listings as they only damage the encyclopedia and its foundation. SwisterTwister talk 21:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable inventor and many reliable sources available.Kittenstix (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Self-balancing scooter The few soures which offer indepth coverage are only in the context of a claim of holding the first patent on a Self-balancing scooter. I noticed that the article on Self-balancing scooter already contains a mention of this. Other than that, this is effectively a BIO1E at this point. I think a redirect works well here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:44, 9 November 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.