Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LG Williams (3rd nomination)
almost on the basis of process alone. This should have gone to  where changes since the last AFDs could be considered by the community and approval given (or not) for the recreation of this article. Instead, serial sock-puppeteers simply recreated it (twice) and have filled it with ref-spam in an attempt to make it look legit. But many are older than 2 years and would have been available during the last discussions. The article would seem to suffer from the same problems that it did in the past. The community supported (in my view) |salting the first time around but that wasn't done (for whatever reason). The sources provided are much the same as last time - self-promotional nonsense from a ''full-time-real-estate-agent / part-time-artist''. They are headlines in the same way that the guys from ''Jackass'' get headlines for stapling their anatomy to things. Yeah, it's "coverage" but seriously... read the actual articles... they're all about how he did something, it won't work, but it was a bit funny, what was his name again
— User:Stalwart111, 06:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:DRV||WP:SALT (Wikipedia:Deletion policy)