Talk:Steve Lyons

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Disambiguation

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

DAB or article?

This DAB [1] was taken over for an article of questionable notability. I've trimmed the worst of the unsourced puffery and promotional material [2]. I have my doubts that this person meets WP:ANYBIO but even if he does warrant an article I don't see this as being the principal target. The editor who added this material seems to have a COI (or even be a paid editor) based on a comment on my talk page and the claim of image ownership made when uploading the image use din the article.

So, the options are:

restore the DAB and get rid of this new material
move the new material to a new title and restore the DAB
leave this new material as the principal target (and fix the DAB issue) Meters (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3 is not an option at all. A new article, 2, could be created at a new title if he is notable. If he is not notable, then 1 would be the way to go. If he turns out to be notable and is shown to be the primary topic (doubtful) then the DAB page should be moved and the new article moved here. We would never overwrite one page with a new page. ~ GB fan 01:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I only put #3 up for discussion because that is what the SPA is edit warring for. My feeling is that the subject is not notable. The early version of this article had all the hallmarks of a puff piece. Meters (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]