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 keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Gooden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article is about Mario Gooden, an architect who own's his own firm. Seems to fail WP:BIO. scope_creep talk 218:01 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• ?. Would the nominator like to comment on whether the subject passes WP:Prof#C5? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Xxanthippe (talk, it's usually Comment which you put for this type of query. Yip, I think he passes WP:Prof#C5, but I also think he fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG in general, as the article stands. The reason I think is that the article has all the hallmarks of a corporate puff piece. At the moment it completely subverts the Letter and Spirit of WP. It mentions Huff 12 times. scope_creep talk 16:20 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Keep Passed Academic Criteria 5. The way to fix puff pieces for notable people is not deletion, but editing away the puffiness with good, solid content.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets our inclusion criteria so other problems are WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM problems. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above - The article needs improving not deleting!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets inclusion criteria. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 11:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I must be getting cynical about the fate of WP. It's curious that everybody seems to be voting for Keep, since Wikipedia is undergoing a major effort, even as wee speak, to remove corporate paid articles, and here we have one. It's been created by the Huff and Gooden architectural agency on the single instance edit account, talk (Huff + Gooden user page not created yet) with most of the article written as an advertising. Even the opening lead created the article context around the fact it's an agency article, not even about the professor at all. scope_creep talk 00:24 05 August 2014 (UTC)

• Your point is?, Millions of SPA's & PR firms create articles and millions are improved to Wikipedia standards, We're an encyclopedia and so should cover anything and everyting within reason. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that it's subverting the idea of Wikipedia. I think if that article was compressed down to the sum of Mario Gooden's content, within 4-6 months, the article would be back to what it is now. scope_creep talk 00:49 05 August 2014 (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.