Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry J. Gillis
without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody without a |conflict of interest can do better than this. What I'm getting from the sourcing is not strong evidence of notability-supporting coverage ''about him'', but a cluster |reference bomb of mostly |primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence; what I'm getting from the writing tone is "semi-|advertorial attempt at self-promotion" rather than "encyclopedia article"; and what I'm getting from this discussion is that all but one of the keep votes above have come from |single-purpose accounts with little to no prior edit history, including the article creator, the article creator's roommate and the article subject himself — but all of the comments, either above or on the article's talk page, which are signed "Barryjedmonton" were posted ''by Donairpizza'', not by a user who is actually registered as "Barryjedmonton", so Donairpizza's claim to be unaffiliated with Barry Gillis is very obviously false.There are potentially valid notability claims here, but this is mostly not the referencing that turns a notability claim into a notability slam-dunk — and even if he ''does'' have a valid notability claim, the article ''still'' has to be written ''neutrally'' by somebody ''without'' a conflict of interest. We are ''not'' a place where Barry Gillis is entitled to write about ''himself'' for PR purposes, whether directly or by paying somebody to do it for him — we're an encyclopedia, where the content has to be written neutrally and independently by people who ''don't'' have a vested interest
— User:Bearcat, 13:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:COI||WP:REFBOMB||WP:PRIMARYSOURCES||WP:NOTADVERT||WP:SPA (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest)