Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Fienberg

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 --JForget 23:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony Fienberg

Anthony Fienberg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

With 59Ghits, this just looks like more vain vanity in vain. Prod removed by author (most likely subject himself). JuJube (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. It's hard to tell how notable his employer is, but he isn't. mentioned here, that's all on Google News Archive. --Dhartung | Talk 09:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as a vanity page. WP is not for posting CVs or for self-promotion.--Berig (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - there are no reliable sources to be found. The only thing I could find was this press release which doesn't qualify as a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - there are plenty of reliable sources, if you take the time to read them. -- Aefienberg (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.195.242.254 (talk)
  • Note: Above comment is from primary author (and subject) of article. JuJube (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable, Conflict of interest, to be polite. Camillus (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non-Notable. I also noticed that there are many external links in the body of the article and not in the External Links section.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 01:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

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.