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, without prejudice towards recreation (delete comments focus on the current state of the article and the motivations of its author). If Rustavo is still interested in creating an NPOV stub from scratch, he may. The following are the references from the article.

Mango juice^talk 16:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Holland[edit]

Blatant (self?)-promotion. Totally unencyclopedic in tone and that's unlikely to change as the article is unlikely to be of interest to any editor save its owner. Somehow this serviced an earlier deletion attempt. Let's do it properly this time.--Doc^g 22:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless properly sourced by the end of AFD. The awards accord minimal notability but without third-party independent assessments a balanced and non-promotional article is impossible. --Dhartung | Talk 20:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reluctant Delete. Bless his heart, I am certain he is a great guy - well loved by everyone who knows him from school and "work". But I just cannot find anything notable that would be of interest to anyone outside of himself, his family and friends, his "community of believers and well-wishers", and perhaps a possible future employer. Reads like a combination resumé and a personal website, and smells like self-promotion. I do not see this article as passing WP:BIO or WP:VANITY. Maybe some day he will be some big stuff - with lots of notability with sourced references and national recognition and such. Just not yet. Sorry Joel. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 14:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but.. This is a close call, since the Business Week article does give him some claim to notability. However, the article as written is blatant self promotion and a violation of the conflict of interest rules. IMHO, it would be acceptable for an unrelated user to entirely replace the current content with an NPOV stub containing info from the BW piece. I am willing to do this. It should also be made clear to this individual/user that he is not to continue editing articles about himself or his company. Note that the previous AfD discussion cited several other significant publications which discuss this individual. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 00:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious violation of WP:AUTO. If the subject was anything more than marginally notable, I'd opt for a weak keep. Caknuck 00:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promotion, clearly against WP:AUTO and WP:COI. I hate to stomp on a young man's ego, but this isn't the place to post his resume. KrakatoaKatie 11:46, 16 May 2007 (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.