Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Harris (designer)

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Harris (designer)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional piece on a jewlery designer that does not show how he is notable. Was created with many references but thay are for the most part deceptive. Most do not verify claims made. Most are not independent reliable sources. Many are dead but a look at the links and the websites they point to suggests more of the same problems. All that can be seen from the few remotely acceptable sources Harris is a jewellery designer who has made personal appearences at a shop. No in depth coverage. Some of the fraudulent sourcing issues include using a listing of one address to claim products in many stores. Using a listing to claim green green credentials. Using an appearence listing to claim philanthropy. Given the deceptive and promotional nature of this article and the lack of independent coverage about Harris this article should be deleted. (Note that this is one of multiple deceptively sourced articles by a blocked spammer creating a walled garden around Liana Werner-Gray). duffbeerforme (talk) 07:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no meat to the sources, this is just promo. complainer (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gongshow ^Talk 02:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It appears that the referencing is an attempt at carpet-bombing the article with sources in the hopes that it would appear to be well-referenced. As noted by the nominator, much of it appears to be just randomly sprinkling sources in the hopes that nobody would check and do not actually verify the statements which they purport to support. There is no significant coverage about him that I can find. His name is rather common and jewelry is also common enough that filtering is tough. I may have missed sources so I am prepared (as always) to consider any new sourcing I may have missed in my own searches. -- Whpq (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.