Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jock Purtle

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. Jenks24 (talk) 05:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jock Purtle

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

Fails WP:GNG. Numerous references in the article but they are either unreliable, brief mentions, quotes, etc. There is one from Forbes [1] but written by a contributor and not staff. The Forbes piece also focuses on the business with him providing insight, not a piece that focuses on him in-depth. CNMall41 (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This has all the hallmarks of sockfarm spam. An article built from a whole lot of nothing. Lacks any depth of coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete blatant self promotion. Created by a single purpose editor. LibStar (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:34, 6 March 2017 (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.