Deletion of Gregory Sichenzia

Comment: Firstly, the article is blatant promotion. (It was created by an editor with a history of creating promotional articles, beyond all reasonable doubt an undisclosed paid editor.) Secondly, there is a total lack of evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. This is an example of |bombarding an article with numerous references in the hope that will give the impression of being well-sourced, but with none of the references contributing evidence of notability. From the 20 references I took a random sample of six of them, as there is a limit to how much time I am willing to spend on analysing a spam article. The six references were as follows. ''An article in which Sichenzia contributes opinions about the subject of the article, not an article about him; a report published by a company for which he has worked as an editor, so it may be written by him, and in any case it is not an independent source; a dead link, but judging both from the title of the link and the context in which it is cited in the article it was (a) about his company, not about him, and (b) merely a listing of the company in a table, not substantial coverage; a YouTube video which I haven't watched, but from the context in which it is mentioned in the article it is Sichenzia giving his opinion, not coverage about him; a page behind a paywall which I haven't read, but once again from the context in which it is mentioned in the article it is Sichenzia giving his opinion, not coverage about him; a list of nineteen participants in giving a course, Sichenzia being one of the nineteen.'' Unless I happen by remarkable bad luck to have randomly selected six very atypical references, there is a serious lack of evidence of notability. What is more, my own search failed to find anything better. ''The editor who uses the pseudonym
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Citation overkill (WP:BOMBARDMENT)