Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Pazornik

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 of the debate was delete (also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Licketyship). -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Pazornik

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Not notable. Self promoting. Sleepyhead 19:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Draeco 20:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• At least it's verifiable but still seems pretty NN. Delete. --Petros471 21:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable and notable as ceo of a Fortune company. Sshoberi 03:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Sshoberi is this articles creator (not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just that WP:AFD#AfD_etiquette says "If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly..."). --Petros471 13:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep speaking as a programmer, what the exec in question is doing is actually quite notable- his company is the first to tackle ecommerce from a web 2.0 perspective. I made similar comments on his company's page as well. Paranom 03:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Paranom's only contributions so far have been voting on this and the Licketyship AfD. --Petros471 13:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Not very entertaining, but it is accurate and legitimate. Toss up Weak Keep --Amerigo 04:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Amerigo's only contributions so far have been at various AfD's and creating his userpage. This does not mean that his (and others above) views will not be taken into account, but they may be treated with less weight by the closing admin, as per WP:AFD#AfD_etiquette. --Petros471 13:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Fortune and others clearly think he is notable as a ceo of an interesting startup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.119.79.132 (talk • contribs)
• Keep Lots of folks are watching what he and his company are doing to set new standards in the retail world. This is someone others will follow. MJR 15:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: MJR's only contributions so far have been voting on this and the Licketyship AfD. --Petros471 15:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This is funny. I found the entry on pazornik through Licketyship after giving what I stated would be my first and last ever AfD vote. Then I see this one up for delete as well (sigh). Again, I'll pre-qualify that I am a new account, but by no means a new contributer. I'll re-state what I said on the Licketyship AfD: those advocating delete are likely unfamiliar with web 2.0 and why it's important. An editor calimed on the related AfD that Licketyship should be deleted becuase the company was not as interesting as DHL, which is patently ridiculous. That's like saying pazornik's entry should be deleted becuase he's not as interesting as Martha Stewart. In both cases, the 2 are very much dissimilar. I will point out that I would like to see the pazornik entry expanded, becuase as it stands, while he is interesting, the entry on him is not so much. But being a stub does not qualify one for deletion - there are a thousand entries on interesting topics I'd like to see expanded. I was interested enough in pazornik to click through his link and attempt to learn more, and the world is apparently interested enough in pazornik that he's been covered by Fortune, CNN, and NYT, to name a few uncovered by a 2 min. google. I rest. --Bigbang21 22:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. It seems there are sockpuppets in use here. --Sleepyhead 12:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete due to sockpuppetry and lack of serious notability. Stifle 16:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep subject notable in media, but requires clean up and expansion 72.29.85.142 03:33, 3 February 2006 (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.