Deletion of Brad Wilson (Entrepreneur)

Comment: G-11 , vanispamcruftisement
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD)

Comment: Does not meet  requirements
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: The article will benefit greatly from expansion, but already meets criteria of , notably that '''The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.''' Any delete vote that includes the word '''cruft''' or any form of the word is usually enough to convince me to keep the article as a sign that people are submitting knee-jerk deltion votes
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Tenuous, like ? While it means that you will actually have to do some work, the full text of the article is not available online to non-subscribers. That it exists, refers to the individual in question is undeniable, and there is no requirement of  that requires a link that will pull up the article in its entirety (nor has anyone ever provided one of those concocted sources that says so). The link provided in the reference is an accurate copy of the full article as it appeared online and corresponds exactly to the article that appeared in the Eastern Edition of the ''Wall Street Journal'' on page B8 of the January 4, 2005 issue of the paper. If you can demonstrate that this source does not pass both  and , let's hear.  is a cute little blurb, but we don't pay attention to things someone made up in school one day, we use actual Wikipedia criteria, such as . Please stop using imaginary, made-up criteria and deal with the issue at hand: the ''Wall Street Journal'' article fully satisfies  with a source that meets  and 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:VSCA||WP:V||WP:RS||WP:V||WP:VSCA||WP:BIO||WP:BIO||WP:RS||WP:V)

Comment: Do you have a subscription to WSJ?  Because without one, it's impossible to verify the "Wall Street Journal" link to provide (really a BradsDeals page which ostensibly reprints the article).  And that's all this guy has so far; even then, I still don't buy the relevance of the other (local) sources.  And just because an article is up for AfD doesn't mean it can't be speedied.  In my opinion, it meets the G11 speedy standard (which is sometimes called |vanispamcruftisement) and should go.  A "strong keep" vote, on the other hand, has zero justifiction given the tenuous sourcing
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:VSCA)

Comment: The fact that he created his own article isn't enough of a reason to delete.  There's good evidence of notability from reliable secondary sources.  This could be developed into a perfectly good, interesting article that would enrich the knowledge base of Wikipedia.  Let's welcome this newcomer and give him some guidance about editing.  |Please don't bite the newbies.  He just needs some help, that's all
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers (WP:BITE)

Comment: per nom and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Spam (WP:SPAM)

Comment: So you have decided that this individual has manipulated the ''Wall Street Journal'', the nation's leading financial newspaper, to write an article about him and his company. And he finagled television coverage on WLS-TV, the ABC flagship station in Chicago. And he supposedly bought coverage in several major national industry publications. So based on your own original research POV supposition, just your own humble opinion, we are supposed to override the clear dictates of , which states that '''The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person''', to include newspaper and articles. Why should we be asked to respond to your mere hunches -- what Wikipedia refers to as ''|Original Research'' -- and not follow the explicit dictates of the  policy? This is not my opinion; this is a direct reference to Wikipedia policy
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:OR||WP:BIO)

Comment: Are you calling the ''Wall Street Journal'' article a "puff piece" Or is the WSJ a "local business paper"? You have a prayer of justifying "spam" or "vanity", but you can't possibly defend that  is not met
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)