Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Businesspeople: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 10: Line 10:
==Businesspeople==
==Businesspeople==
<!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
<!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Marcegaglia}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Niniane_Wang}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Niniane_Wang}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Khali_Sweeney}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Khali_Sweeney}}

Revision as of 10:46, 20 August 2021

Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Businesspeople. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Businesspeople|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Businesspeople. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

This list is included in more general lists of business-related deletions and people for deletion.

See also: Businesses for deletion.

Businesspeople

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Marcegaglia

Emma Marcegaglia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. GermanKity (talk) 10:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:46, 20 August 2021 (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.
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. RL0919 (talk) 10:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Niniane Wang

Niniane Wang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Coatracky CV style article about a run of the mill business person not shown to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:NBLP. Most of the sources are either interviews or puff pieces derived from press releases. The subject hasn't one any notable awards outside of the usual listicle style top 50 or top 25 which are all puffery and hardly accolades. Ferkingstad (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:46, 20 August 2021 (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.
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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khali Sweeney

Khali Sweeney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No apparent notability except for Downtown Boxing Gym Youth Program, a local youth gym with a very promotional article created by the same editor. I don't think there's even justification for a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 17:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 26 August 2021 (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.
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. No consensus to delete this and the unverifiability concern has been addressed in the AfD. The promo issues can be dealt with through editing. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca de la Garza

Bianca de la Garza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Spam and Unverifiability Cureitlitte (talk) 09:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for edit, however I'm afraid my research on the said personality might affect with the sense of reputation. Cureitlitte (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How do those sources overcome WP:NOTSCANDAL? There does appear to be WP:BASIC/WP:GNG notability without an WP:UNDUE focus on Hajjar, who pled guilty to embezzelment after financing several of her business ventures, which led to her becoming subject to a lawsuit that resolved with a confidential settlement. Sources that independently support her notability without relying on allegations, innuendo, or rumor include Bianca de la Garza on Redefining Beauty, Raising Her Daughter and Embracing Her Latinidad (People 2019), Meet Bianca de la Garza: The woman moving up the ranks in late-night, (Insider 2015), and The anchors next door Newscasters David Wade and Bianca de la Garza maintain life as normal suburban couple in Tewksbury (Lowell Sun 2007). Beccaynr (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the care with which you have examined this BIO. Unfortunately I think that the sources you show are just as trivial as the one at present. My vote to delete is unchanged. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2021 (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.
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. RL0919 (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anzio Storci

Anzio Storci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotion of a Non-notable businessman. Fails WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. DMySon (talk) 09:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 09:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 09:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 09:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty meaningless in the absence of actual, you know, cited sources. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can’t find anything online to support this bio except for a single profile in Gazzetta di Parma. If anyone is able to demonstrate offline sourcing I’ll reconsider. Mccapra (talk) 10:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Per rationale by Praxidicae & Mccapra. I too do not see anything cogent that suggests GNG or anybio is met. Celestina007 (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The best I could find was [11], which appears to be a collection of issues of a magazine; unclear if it has anything to do with Barilla the Pasta company; and this, the reliability of which I'm unsure of. However, there are several passing mentions, and a presumed language barrier for most people who have searched for sources thus far: so I could be missing some sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:05, 2 September 2021 (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.
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. The arguments made against the sources provided by Eastmain have remained uncontested. Sandstein 08:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Dolgoff

Gene Dolgoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Much of the content of the article is unsourced, and there are no citations to any coverage in reliable independent sources. At present the article contains tags about sourcing dated 2016, but questions have been raised repeatedly over a much longer time than that. A PROD was made in 2010, but contested. A large proportion of the editing of the article has been done by a small number of single-purpose accounts, at least some of which appear to have a conflict of interest (including an account named Gdolgoff). JBW (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those "good references" are as follows. The "Insider" article has a single two sentence mention of Dolgoff. In fact the complete and unabridged text about Dolgoff is "Inventor Gene Dolgoff had been working on creating the first LCD projector since the 1960s. Finally, in 1987, Dolgoff improved upon his design and patented it, creating the company Projectavision, Inc." "ScreenRant" has even less than that: a one sentence mention. The"ComputerWorld" article has one short paragraph about Dolgoff. The "Looper" article has several mentions of Dolgoff spread over a few paragraphs, but it is a very small proportion of the whole, and is not substantial coverage. In short, the "good references" do nothing to show notability. (In fact, if those are the best that can be found by an editor who has been here for 15 years and made over 40000 edits, and for whom voting "keep" in numerous AfD discussions is one of his main activities, then it suggests that there isn't much to be found, because if anyone could find it, he could.) JBW (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Already from the start of the article on WP, the claim was made that Dolgoff is the inventor of digital projection. Later, the more specific claim was made that Dolgoff started experimenting and thinking about LCD projectors in 1968. This was repeated in a video on YouTube showing an interview with Dolgoff and drawings as well as a patent publication in the background. The title of this video is: The inventor of the LCD projector. There is no reliable, independent evidence supporting this claim. Early related work by researchers at RCA Labs and Bell Labs used LCDs for experimental projection was based on electronbeam or laser addressing. Publications appeared from 1968 onwards. Having the idea of using LCDs for projection at that time was nothing extraordinary. However, making working prototypes was a challenge not tried by Dolgoff before 1983. To my knowledge, Peter J. Wild at Brown Boveri was first to implement a digital LCD projector using a modified conventional projector in 1971 (see LCD projector). If the rest of the article is based on similar misleading information, I vote for Delete.--BBCLCD (talk) 08:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:06, 2 September 2021 (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.
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. Unanimously, minus the SPAs and socks. Sandstein 19:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anjali Phougat

Anjali Phougat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. She's a mid-level exec with a side hustle. Neither the day job nor the design work establish notability. Cabayi (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This person has achieved great success and her film won best short film award and she presented her collection on Cannes film festival and have significant coverage in reliable sources. Not everyone accomplish and get so many recognitions from international institutes by doing side hustle. very well deserved to be on the platform since she is inspiration to many fellow woman's and continuously working towards social causes. Kayle123 (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
— Kayle123 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Cabayi (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
— no longer true, as Kayle123 has made other edits. David notMD (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Based on my WP:BEFORE and a review of the article and its sources, it appears to be WP:TOOSOON for WP:BASIC or WP:CREATIVE notability to be supported by independent and reliable sources. There is a local FOX affiliate that names her fashion brand as one of several creating face masks for medical providers in 2020, a 2021 interview in The Tribune, a 2021 bylined Times of India article ("not only did she showcase her collection, but also won the best film award under the Global Short Film Awards category at the prestigious film festival") that is mostly an interview, a 2021 interview about her film in what may be a blog, and several posts 1, 2, 3, 4 from a website with an Ethics section that includes, "this policy should not be considered as universal for every scenario or as hard established rules", and "The news and information are sometimes reviewed by more than one editor and may include fact-checks." During my review, I removed sources listed as unreliable at WP:ICTFSOURCES and several other blog sources. Beccaynr (talk) 03:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Based on my review of the article and its sources, it appears that we should give time to improve the article and support by adding more reliable sources as a community and should not vote for deleting the article. I see good press coverage when google this person and strongly recommend to give time and improve the article instead of deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliana000 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC) — Juliana000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
— Juliana000 and Kayle123 (above) have each been blocked as sockpuppets of Punjabier. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:23, 20 August 2021 (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.
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 merge to Family of Joe Biden. To an extent to be determined by editorial consensus. Sandstein 07:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Biden Sr.

Joseph Biden Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. All of this article is about Joe Biden Sr. in the context of his famous son. No coverage exists to establish WP:GNG independent of his son. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, WP:BIO is about whether people warrant their own pages, and has no restrictions against mentioning them within general family pages. Neither does WP:BLP for that matter as long as the sources used are trustworthy. What I'm saying is we're better off talking about him there than having a separate article. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point I think there's about 80% overlap with what is already there. To the extent that more can be added that is sourced, I'm not seeing a problem. BD2412 T 02:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to what Muboshgu wrote, WP:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes mentions nothing about Presidential parents, and trying to use that as a basis for keeping feels like a cheap cop-out when it specifically says This page is not a policy or guideline, and previous outcomes do not bind future ones. Whether other moms/dads of Presidents warrant their own articles is also irrelevant here per WP:WHATABOUTX and therefore not a convincing argument. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Muboshgu: your deletion argument seems to imply that coverage of him separate of his relationship with Biden Jr. is necessary. This is not what WP:NOTINHERITED says in any way. Biden Sr. is only known for his relationship to Biden Jr. but that does not mean he is not notable - the sourcing here is decent enough to establish notability. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My initial argument reads too much like that, but I just meant there isn't enough coverage of Biden Sr. for his own article. Parents of POTUS aren't some category that we presume notable, as many parents of POTUS are notable in their own right. Barack Obama Sr is obviously not notable without his son's career, but he's been written about extensively. I don't see that in sourcing of Biden Sr. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or at least redirect to Family of Joe Biden -- as per others, especially WP:NOTINHERITED. Used references are also in majority connected with Joe Biden Jr. Doesn't seem notable to me as an independent article.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 15:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Family of Joe Biden I have not seen enough independent coverage to warrant an article. --Enos733 (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Family of Joe Biden. I don't see WP:NOTINHERITED as being particularly relevant here since, for better or for worse, Biden Sr. has indeed received coverage in reliable sources sufficient to meet the GNG. (The coverage in the NYT, the Independent, etc. makes that clear.) But notability is not a guarantee that a stand-alone article is appropriate: per WP:NOPAGE, it may be better to merge the information to a page where additional background and context can be provided. Since (as appears to be uncontested) Biden Sr. has only received sigcov because of his son, it's far better to merge this article into a broader one, allowing for him to be situated in context instead of isolating him in the abstract. In other words, this is a case where "other information" and "related topics" "provide needed context": discussing the impact of Biden's family on him is best done in a single location, where all relevant events and family members can be considered holistically. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Family of Joe Biden. I would say merge, but all the worthwhile information seems to already be present at the target article. TompaDompa (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2021 (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.
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. ✗plicit 00:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Moser

Neal Moser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional page that is almost completely unsourced. Luthier that does not seem to pass WP:GNG. Mbdfar (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG. Moser was indeed a luthier, as confirmed by several classified advertisements found in newspapers.com. He was a luthier of some reputation, as confirmed by [13] and [14]. I would not consider either of these to be significant coverage. Since this is the entirety of what I was able to find on the topic, I don't believe the topic meets our General Notability Guideline, or any other notability guideline. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:42, 19 August 2021 (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.
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. RL0919 (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique De La Caridad Angulo Borrero

Enrique De La Caridad Angulo Borrero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't see the notability. I can see that the article was trialled on the Sesotho Wikipedia before appearing here. Ingratis (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep.There is a lot of news and resources on the internet pages.If the poll is removed.More resources will be created.E B R A M (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC) E B R A M (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Opinion :I am originally of Iranian descent and have no connection with this person. And I registered him on the Wikipedia page because of an order from a friend.E B R A M (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you explain what you mean by an 'order'? Why did your friend not write the article themselves? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

>::Nothing. I just translated the text incorrectly. So I got it wrong, that's why I wrote it like this. I meant that a friend told me to create this person's page.E B R A M (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2021 (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.
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. Seddon talk 08:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Capozzi

Louis Capozzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Oleaginous CV, dubiously referenced, for somebody who doesn't appear to meet WP:PERSON. -- Hoary (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 01:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 01:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fast work, McMatter! -- Hoary (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I'm surprised to see a mention of journalism (immediately above); but because of it, this discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions too. -- Hoary (talk) 05:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, I found this article but took it to a Teahouse question as I wasn't experienced enough to know what to do; @Hoary kindly brought it here. My feeling is that Capozzi is probably only marginally notable once all the publicity traced to himself and PRSA (of which he served as president) has been stripped away. But in any case, the article is so awful in its current form of a congratulatory CV that I'd go for complete deletion and start again even if he is notable. Also the article was written by an editor whose sole work was this article and that of the PRSA, suggesting the whole thing might have a big conflict of interest. Elemimele (talk) 07:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Ideally, the article should be blown up and started over, but there appears to be a kernel of notability. Cleaned it up a bit. Actually there were TWO editors (Himehdi12 (creator) and Eagerbeaver150 (2017-19)) who did not declare COI or PAID, but had a focus only on Lou or PRSA Foundation (the latter not being the same as PRSA). — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs) 11:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 04:49, 30 August 2021 (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.
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. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oluremi Akintola-Samuel

Oluremi Akintola-Samuel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional BLP based on promotional sources. Not notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2021 (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.
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. RL0919 (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Nandalike

Walter Nandalike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP at least part-edited by its subject, promotional in tone and lacking any real claim of notability. Full of puffery and unsupported claims but there’s nothing substantial to warrant even sending it to draft IMV. Mccapra (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2021 (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.
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. I find DGG's analysis of the sources convincing. GNG requires in-depth independent coverage, and if the sources do not meet the criteria, GNG is not passed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Cobley

Dan Cobley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With reference to WP:NOTCV. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC as per the WP:RS in the article. This nomination lacks WP:BEFORE or lacks the understanding of AfD. The reasoning is also WP:JUSTAPOLICY. - The9Man (Talk) 16:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be notable, according to The Times he was the Managing Director of Google in the UK https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lunch-queues-the-new-hi-tech-hothouses-at-google-8ccq735pbj8 also I get 300+ hits on ProQuest (Wikipedia Library) when I search for his name Piecesofuk (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG, enough coverage is available like the above The Times article. INeedToFlyForever (talk) 12:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ping: Sending ping for fetching unbiased assessments from experts - @DGG, Timtrent, TheAafi, and Umakant Bhalerao:. Thanks in advance. -Hatchens (talk) 03:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete . Refs 1, 5, 6,7 are notices or mentions , 2, 3, 9 he wrote himself. 8 is PR. I can't see 4, but I doubt it's substantially about him. We should stop counting references, and actually read them. And we should take a careful look at articles on his companies--Clearscore is advertising. I have a rough rule of thumb: if the first sentence, in addition to whatever the person actually is, which in this case is a businessperson, claims "investor" or "entrepreneur", it's puffery, because all businesspeople at a high enough level to even be considered for an article do those things--they're not exact synonyms, but they're close. . If in addition to what the person actually is in any field at all, it adds "speaker", the article is invariable promotional puffery. The only question is whether the person is so important as to be worth rewriting the article from scratch. I wish we had decent articles on important people in business, because knowing about them is important and sometimes even interesting, but unless they become famous, there is rarely a true substantial 3rd party reliable published source, not press release or blog or promotional interviews or mere notices. The problem is that PR has replaced journalism. Unless we change our mission to a convenient place to collect PR, instead of to write encyclopedia articles, I do not see how we can do much about it. The deWP seems to do better, possibly because the PR people there are at a higher level, or they take business more seriously. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We do need to improve the RSP list, but this might be a major and contentious undertaking. We also need better awareness that sometimes there might be no fully reliable source, at least in the willingness to publish promotionalism DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 18 August 2021 (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.
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 no consensus. Sandstein 08:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Olaf Carlson-Wee

Olaf Carlson-Wee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With reference to WP:NOTCV, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at our formal rules for sourcing: 40 under 40 etc. is a pure promotional gimmick, in all of its many permutations. An alumni magazine is not usually a RS. Ref 7 he seems to have dictated himself. 4 & 2 have suspicious similar titles--that usually means they were written from the same press release. No article referring to someone's "native brilliance" should be even considered as a RS. -- But this does leave open at least the possibility that 1 is a real source--has anyone read it? DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DGG For the first paragraph: This is your personal opinion and assumptions. Let's stick with the formal rules and policies.
* I agree that 40 under 40 and 30 under 30, etc, are probably promotional. But still, we do have articles on them, that make them notable. In fact, I added that after realizing the list has an article here. I see some irony there. No objection, just saying.
* Alumni magazine link is used to support the content and not to prove the notability.
* Ref 7 is an interview and is used to support the information and not to be considered as RS. Used to support the content and not to prove the notability.
* I have some concerns rejecting the 4 & 2. Isn't how the news industry works? Somebody breaks a news and everybody else follows when they find it newsworthy? There are at least 20+ articles on news websites about this with almost the same title with a simple search. Or maybe you are right, I don't know and I don't make assumptions. - The9Man (Talk) 09:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
of course everything I say is my personal opinion. That's the purpose of makign comments at AfD. I'm making comments, not decisions. DGG ( talk ) 09:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 17:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 12:29, 31 August 2021 (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.
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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. However, any future recreation would do well to tone down the promotional tone of this article as it stands. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis Jones (chief executive)

Ellis Jones (chief executive) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to satisfy WP:BASIC/GNG. Has no WP:SIGCOV. – DarkGlow • 11:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 11:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 11:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 11:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 11:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.
Logs: 2013-03 ↻ restored ← 2013-03 ✗ G6
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2021 (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.
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. ✗plicit 13:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry L. Mills

Jerry L. Mills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined CSD WP:G11. I am not finding any WP:GNG sources about this person. There are sources that quote this person, but that doesn't establish notability. Aside from GNG (and WP:NBIO), I don't see evidence that their publications meet WP:NAUTHOR notability. Levivich 14:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Levivich 14:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Levivich 14:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Levivich 14:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coolperson177 (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:12, 25 August 2021 (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.
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. Geschichte (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bram Lebo

Bram Lebo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a lawyer and entrepreneur, not reliably sourced as passing our notability standards for lawyers or entrepreneurs. The strongest notability claim here is that he founded an online newspaper, which is not an instant notability freebie in the absence of a demonstrable pass of WP:GNG on his sourceability -- but apart from one genuinely solid source covering him in that context, this is otherwise referenced almost entirely to the self-published websites of directly affiliated companies and organizations, except for a single (deadlinked) hit of coverage in a smalltown hyperlocal in the context of running for, but failing to win, a seat on the town council, which does not pass WP:NPOL either. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just one hit of GNG-worthy coverage. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:29, 18 August 2021 (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.
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. Main advocate for keeping blocked for UPE. This does not necessarily mean all their comments are rendered null and void, but I have to give them much less weight, and therefore consensus is quite clear. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Kleff

AfDs for this article:
Mario Kleff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Increasingly lacking in confidece that this is a notable article. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 13:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: I don't understand. Perhaps there's more to learn about the Wikipedia rules. Thanks for the clarification, however. Meow2021 (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC) Regards[reply]
  • Delete Aside from the long-term history (11 years, to be precise) of promotion (and obvious sockpuppeting at the first AfD), I am not convinced by the sources that this person is notable. The article claims seem to be accompanied by very marginal proof of accomplishment. --- Possibly ☎ 17:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sourcing (including the inspirepattaya.com piece linked above) all appears to come from outfits that deal in Native advertising, making it impossible to establish that this is really independent coverage. While 'Real Estate Magazine Thailand' was a print publication, judging from their website it was a free 'delivered around town whether you want it or not' book of ads for real estate listings. - MrOllie (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - promotional article and, as per MrOlllie, most of the sources are native advertising, therefore the subject lacks independent coverage. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The weight of evidence seems to indicate he fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 23:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Promotional or non-promotional is a matter of interpretation. I created this article on the development of Pattaya. Mr. Mario Kleff appears and stands out. I found his story remarkable, and still do. However, I can agree that this may not be noteworthy at the international level. Yet there are things noteworthy in his life and work that cannot be described as promotional or non-artistic. I hereby disagree. I did research to better understand feedback as I'm a newbie to Wikipedia and still don't understand all of the regulations. The translation of past newspaper articles clearly shows that he studied art and design, and there have been a number of notable exhibitions including at the Gutenberg Museum Mainz and the Diocesan Museum Trier. Maybe as a journalist I should be questioning myself... delete it if you want, but the process of how certain editors have tried this since I wrote about proves something too... Also, in the first deletion says "low-level designer"... I mean, what kind of statement is that? The man likely created much of Pattaya city, including confirmed inventions in building construction. But some Wikipedia editors have created nothing but emotional statements. Prove to me that contributing to Wikipedia can be a waste of time. Regards Meow2021 (talk) 02:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @Meow2021: Do you still have sources on those notable exhibitions? Those would bolster the case for keeping the article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Answer @Qwaiiplayer: I did intensive research while creating all the articles. The most relevant links to this particular article have been used, I have not included unsuitable sources, e.g. Mainz News: Mario Kleff and Urs Düggelin in the Gutenberg Museum Mainz 1993, Ireland and the Book of Kells, not A Masterpiece Of Expressiveness - The artist Mario Kleff copied the Book of in 1997 Kells in the Episcopal Cathedral and Diocesan Museum Trier, which required an installation of Macromedia Flashplayer to view it in the Firefox browser, Chrome would not work. It is also said that he studied art and design and worked as an art director for a company in Munich, which suggests that he is an artist. It seemed that there were years of artistic work between 1993-1997. Tried to make the most of it. In all honesty, I still don't get the discussion about this article. Regards Meow2021 (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To my knowledge, all this information is factually verifiable and non-contentious. If this is considered insufficiently "notable", then thousands of other Wikipedia entries which are far less notable will need to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:fb1:135:fe32:b809:a040:df5f:d8ef (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Why do you want to delete Mario Kleff?! This article is about a designer and engineer who lives in Pattaya and seems to be properly prepared. Be sure to keep it. Also, I suggest to bring back the full article to give the reader a better picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.204.221.186 (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - please note that the above two IP accounts have no other edits to date. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MrsSnoozyTurtle: What is your note supposed to mean? Does it mean that my opinion should not be recognized in an open discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.204.221.186 (talk) 09:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Controversial figure in the Pattaya area. Loads of native advertising, non-RS sources etc that swamps any Google search. However, if you search hard enough, you can find enough to satisfy GNG from reporting of opposition to his schemes. I've only looked in English language sources, there may be more in Thai sources. To clarify a statement above, the sockpuppetry etc took place 11 years ago, rather than it has been going on continuously for over 11 years (unless there is something I don't know about). --John B123 (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@John B123: You seem to have a habit of posting comments like these without providing the actual sources, or evidence to the contary. The normal course would be to post WP:THREE reference to prove its notable. Can you do that, please? scope_creepTalk 14:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: That seems extremely biased. Your opinion above that he fails he fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV is accepted, but my opinion he does is challenged. That is one of the reasons I try and avoid AfDs. --John B123 (talk) 15:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@John B123: You don't seem to be. That is not biased. You have made a statement without evidence. That is the normal process in WP:AFD for more than a decade now. Provide WP:THREE refs to prove the article is notable, and then the Afd can come to a stop, immediately. Saying they're is evidence there, there without showing the evidence is just that, a statement, with no validity. scope_creepTalk 15:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep:, @John B123:That's exactly what I can't understand on Wikipedia! Editors should discuss and help each other rather than competing for rankings. I believe the references given are strong enough for this article. I only read from claims that these references are promotional or even paid advertisements in local magazines. Where is the evidence of that? Why is so little discussion about the article and content, the facts written down? This I want to know. Regards Meow2021 (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) a statement, with no validity, no more than your statement above hence my comment. Whilst on the subject of AfD procedures, the nomination of the article is taken as read that the nominator !votes delete, so doesn't add a separate !vote within the discussion. However, I've got far more constructive things to do with my time than argue over this so have struck through my "statement". --John B123 (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@John B123: I'm sorry, You didn't need to do that. I thought it would be a timesaver. I'll search for three references and do a review of the current refernces. scope_creepTalk 15:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Some of his projects have been covered by news website The Thaiger.[16][17] The site falls a bit more on the tabloidish side of the news spectrum, but the coverage isn't quite positive so it's presumably not sponsored and should count as independent. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is promotional. I reviewed all the sources ever used in the article. There is some very minimal coverage in independent, reliable sources, but mostly, it's over-the top promotion. International star architect... I don't think so. They have better coverage than this:
    • [18] tearsheet from , note that merits.partners is run by Kleff
    • [19] tearsheet from Lifestyle, a supplement to Pattaya People Weekly (http://pattayapeople.com/)
    • dead link
    • dead link
    • dead link
    • dead link
    • dead link
    • [20] looks like a press release, but source is used in 23 other articles
    • [21] dead link only used in articles about Kleff or related topics (Cellular beam, Wongamat Tower and Mario Kleff)
    • [22] dead link
    • [23] dead link
    • [24] dead link
    • [25] dead link
    • [26] dead link
    • [27] dead link
    • [28] dead link
    • [29] dead link
    • [30] dead link
    • [31] dead link
    • [32] dead link
    • [33] dead link
    • [34] dead link
    • [35] seems OK, isbn 9783790201642
    • [36] PediaPress is definitely not a reliable source
    • [37] dead link
    • [38] two sentences mention Kleff only briefly, but the author refers to him as "the famous architect Mario Kleff."
    • [39] self-published: Source: Mario Kleff
    • [40] half a sentence: "and Mario Kleff – a renowned German architect"
    • [41] tearsheet from ReM, ([42], formerly realestatemagazinethailand.com I think) refers to him as "international star architect Mario Kleff"
    • [43] Not a published source
    • [44] doesn't mention Kleff, refers to "foreign husband, nationality unconfirmed"
    • [45] provides some coverage, appears independent
    • [46] doesn't mention Kleff, source is 77kaoded, links to * [47] dead link
    • [48] self-published
    • some coverage in the Aachener Zeitung
    • [49] author is a "contributor"
    • [50] doesn't mention Kleff.
    • [51] doesn't mention Kleff.
    • [52] only says: Der Künstler und Designer Mario Kleff kopiert das "Book of Kells". (English: The artist and designer Mario Kleff copies the "Book of Kells".)
    • [53] doesn't mention Kleff.
    • [54] Single sentence: "Der Künstler Mario Kleff hat das Buch als Faksimile kopiert und somit der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich gemacht." (English:The artist Mario Kleff has copied the book as a facsimile and thus made it accessible to the public.)
    • [55] youtube is not a reliable source
    • [56] youtube is not a reliable source

Vexations (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the difficulties in this article, it was no less difficult to keep track of and get all the facts and information. However, for me, there is no doubt about the validity of Mario Kleff and his work. As mentioned earlier, I am in no way affiliated or related to the subject, but I am a journalist who works in Pattaya and I know what is in town. The story is rather interesting and I've been trying to sort things out. Please do what you are supposed to, but do it without emotion. Regards Meow2021 (talk) 03:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I came across this article and discussion but I know nothing about this man. However, while reading the story and reference links, I would suggest saving them. There seems to be a lot of effort re-establishing the information and links provided. I don't think it harms Wikipedia or overrates this person. To me it doesn't read as an advertisement, maybe a little colorful in the news articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:6200:8851:8ce1:edad:17dc:5c05:e9da (talk) — 2403:6200:8851:8ce1:edad:17dc:5c05:e9da (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Editor 223.204.221.186. Another WP:SPA who has never added content to any Wikipedia article. scope_creepTalk 09:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hint! After looking at the history, it appears to be a different editor. Regards Meow2021 (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: You should give people easier access to participate !! I found it very difficult to find the comments section. I don't like this fella but he did some great things here in Pattaya. So if my vote counts keep it then — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.47.155.200 (talk • contribs)

Editor 1.47.155.200 . Another WP:SPA who has never added content to any Wikipedia article. scope_creepTalk 11:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Disappointment - After being invited to join the discussion about whether or not to delete / keep / improve the article, I now feel like Editor John B123: better not to waste time and open the arena to those who can decide what to do when and how to do it. There is no real discussion and attention for improvement here, but rather assertions and cherry-picking. Now what about the article... what's the next step? Hello, anyone home? Meow2021 (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Meow2021, the Afd runs for seven days. It might be worth reading WP:AFD and WP:THREAD. Everytime somebody makes a comment, the new entry pops up in their watchlist. scope_creepTalk 17:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you scope_creep for feedback and info, didn't know. Regards Meow2021 (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Possibly: Am I? I haven't changed anything as the editing history proves. I only responded to the suggested information in chronological order. AfD's appear to be difficult. I just saw your feedback on my talk page. Regards, Meow2021 (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After reviewing the article sources, and considering Vexations analyses thereof, I am not finding that this person meets WP notability criteria WP:GNG nor WP:NARCHITECT. The proliferation of SPA's on this AfD, and refactoring of other editors posts is also troubling. It also seems there may be some double !vote errors. Some advise to Meow2021: please let the AfD process unfold naturally. Netherzone (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hi everyone, after reading the links on the Wikipedia rules you are referring to, I started to understand why the article I created and tried to defend is weak, especially when it comes to noteworthy links and statements. It seems that regardless of verified or unverified information on a topic in magazines or newspapers, "notable" is being challenged, so is the article. Thank you editors for your participation and feedback on this matter. No insult or attack was meant. Regards, Meow2021 (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have never seen this before, but Mario Kleff has two different promotional biographies devoted to himself at the Wandee Group web site. One and two. This may be relevant for those assessing sources and wondering how much promotion is behind them. --- Possibly ☎ 06:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After spending a little more time researching, I found articles about Mario Kleff and his work with the Book of Kells. Exhibitions e.g. Gutenberg Museum confirmed. Search results on pages 52 - 56[57] Meow2021 (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Genious is a business information site, information in the form of blog, press-releases, whitepapers, research papers put out by companies. They would not be independent. The merits above is content for website. It is not independent either. scope_creepTalk 10:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant entry seems to be either https://www.genios.de/document?id=TV__1297130085&src=hitlist&offset=550, or https://www.genios.de/document?id=TV__1297110012&src=hitlist&offset=550 which references an 67- or 76-word article in the de:Trierischer Volksfreund, a local newspaper. It's not a link to the article itself, so it's not a citation at all, merely clue that the Volksfreund published an announcement for a "Dia-Vortrag" (a slide lecture) in the local library. Not a great source.Vexations (talk) 11:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Newspapers such as Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Allgemeine Zeitung [58], Rhein Zeitung [59] , General-Anzeiger, Süddeutsche Zeitung [60], Paulinus [61] published articles about Mario Kleff and the Book of Kells, work and exhibitions. I've downloaded and translated some. Meow2021 (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Post up links to the best three per WP:THREE, so they can be examined. scope_creepTalk 13:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not required that sources are in English, nor do they need to be translated, but they do need to be cited in such a way that it is possible for other editors to find the source. Just saying that something was published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine is not sufficient. The name date of publication, title, author are the minimum. A URL is optional, but not required. I would advise against translating a source though, especially if one is not a native or near-native speaker. (Noting that Meow2021 claims to speak English, Thai and Chinese, but doesn't mention German). Vexations 21:53, 16 August 2021. The sig machine is down. Sig added by scope_creepTalk 21:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vexations: I appreciate your advice, but I don't speak German. [62] Meow2021 (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide URL links to the articles, so we can examine them. I can read German. scope_creepTalk 23:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: Tried. Links to articles appear to be reserved for paid access.

... The Munich artist Mario Kleff has meticulously traced 14 pages from this unique specimen on parchment following the model in detail. These replicas can be seen together with information boards on the genesis work..., Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, August 13, 2001, No. 186. p. 62

... In 1990, this gave the now 33-year-old painter and designer Mario Kleff , who was fascinated by the Book of Kells, with the idea of tracing the book down to the last detail with the orginal colors and on calf's parchment and thus preserving it for posterity ... In February 1993 Kleff was able to present five finished pages in the Gutenberg Museum Mainz ..., Allgemeine Zeitung, 06/29/00

... A few weeks ago, the artist Mario Kleff was a guest in the Bishop's Cathedral and Diocesan Museum, who made it his business to copy the "Book of Kells". Some of these re-painted pages can be seen in the facsimile exhibition in the Episcopal Cathedral and Diocesan Museum ... Paulinus, No. 42, p. 11

... The German art expert Mario Kleff (born in 1967) has been making a duplicate based on a bet for about ten years Gospels. In the meantime 30 of about 700 pages have been reproduced. 15th his precise works are exhibited in the Calauer Landkirche and can be compared with the originals ... Lausitzer Rundschau, 08/28/2003

... About 1200 years ago three monks wrote and illustrated in Ireland infinite ingenuity on veal parchment the four gospels in Latin language. The Munich artist Mario Kleff left this Handwriting with with original recipes meticulously handcrafted ..., Rhein-Zeitung, 02.03.1999 / LOK

There is more on this subject. Regards Meow2021 (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I spent time and research creating the article on Mr. Mario Kleff, helped to keep it. Information above along with other references found on Google Books [63] and Google News [64] should be viewed as factually verifiable. Regards Meow2021 (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meow2021. but I don't speak German You just wrote: I've downloaded and translated some. Did you mean that you used machine translation? Not necessary. We can do that too, and some of us speak German. Better give the German text. But do provide a proper reference please. Vexations (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations To links provided you answered Genious is a business information site, information in the form of blog, press-releases, whitepapers, research papers put out by companies. They would not be independent. Since you speak German, I recommend that you download and read, or translate if you don't [65]. Quote scope_creep The name date of publication, title, author are the minimum. A URL is optional, but not required. Regards Meow2021 (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and before I forget, paywalled sources are also acceptable. Not so great is a reference to the F.A.Z. without a title and author. BTW, the F.A.Z. has a page where it lists its articles from August 13, 2001 at https://www.faz.net/artikel-chronik/nachrichten-2001-august-13/. I don't see anything there about Kleff though. https://fazarchiv.faz.net/fazSearch/index/searchForm?q=%22Mario+Kleff%22&search_in=&timePeriod=timeFilter&timeFilter=&DT_from=&DT_to=&KO%2CSO=&crxdefs=&NN=&CO%2C1E=&CN=&BC=&submitSearch=Suchen&maxHits=&sorting=&toggleFilter=&dosearch=new#hitlist yields some results, but those are in the Rhein-Main-Zeitung (the regional edition), not the F.A.Z. In other words, the citation "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, August 13, 2001, No. 186. p. 62" fails verification, and you admittedly can't read it in the original German, nor do you have access, because it's paywalled. Vexations (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vexations: Search more! Quelle: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Zeugnis fruhen Christentums, 13.08.2001, Nr. 186, S. 62
Why should I do more work to find a source that you cannot correctly identify? If you already have it, show it to us. Vexations (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if refs exist, it sounds like trivial human interest material. He traced and colored pages from the notable manuscript, notability is not inherited. This is not original work by an artist, it'a a stunt. I can't see how this act of tracing a manuscript could pass the criteria for notability for artists per WP:NARTIST. It sounds like more PR-placement of news-release coverage. Netherzone (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regardless, the article Mario Kleff contains over 27 reference links as well as new information revealed on this page; Information that they claim is promotional and unverifiable. Keep - unless you can prove incorrect information. Regards Meow2021 (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meow2021 you have already !voted once, double !voting is not permitted. I have struck your second K***. Netherzone (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is clearly heading toward deletion, but as there's some good-faith effort being made to examine the German sources, relisting for another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 09:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: Thank you for the opportunity. The article is now rewritten and hopefully meets the WP requirements. Please advise how to link German sources... Regards Meow2021 (talk) 08:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is a passing mentions, so is non-notable. It is not in-depth. scope_creepTalk 16:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The second article is a brief mention at 264 words is two small paragraphs, is not in-depth. Mentions the Books of Kells, a single event. scope_creepTalk 17:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't access the middle one? scope_creepTalk 17:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Middle one is supposed to be the 3rd cited reference (Frankfurter Neue Presse. 25 August 2001) but it looks like it's using the wrong URL since it's identical to the one used in the 2nd reference. Regardless, thanks for your input and I'll be staying with my !vote above. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93:The nomination for the deletion claim, which relates to articles that lack in-depth information, is utter nonsense. In view of the evidence, Mr Mario Kleff has undoubtedly been known for years in connection with the Book of Kells. His work was presented in 1993 in the Gutenberg Museum Mainz, in 1997 in the Diocesan Museum Trier and from 1993 to 2000 in numerous other locations. His daughter is Jiang Li Wongsin. Mario Kleff is the director of Wandeegroup, Wandee Real Estate and Wandeegroup Asia with the given Thai name Thiti Teerachin. His wife is Nittaya Wongsin, they are married so it oviously that they both are linked to leopards. The article was fairly rewritten but again edited before the discussion closed. That seems like cherry picking to me; or personally?

Note: The following information that I found on the Wandeegroup website is not used to verify the article but to aid the information in question. It says here Jiang Li Wongsin[69], daughter of Mario Kleff and Nittaya Wongsin. Kleff was presented at the Trier Museum and worked on the Book of Kells.[70] This is how it reads when you enter the German text and use Google translate into English: "A masterpiece of expressiveness and craftsmanship - the artist and designer copies the Book of Kells. A few weeks ago, the artist who made it his mission to copy the Book of Kells was a guest in the Episcopal Cathedral and Diocesan Museum. Some of the painted pages can also be seen in the facsimile exhibition in the Episcopal Museum. About seven years ago, Mario Kleff started to recreate this work. Born in Boppard, Kleff learned early Christian book illumination with a focus on the manufacture of writing and work implements before he decided to study painting, graphics and design." Regards Meow2021 (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC) 10:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is just a tiny little bit misleading. Yes, there is a headline that says "Ein Meisterwerk an Aussagekraft und Handwerk“, BUT that is a quote from Kleff about the original, it is not an assessment of Kleff's work. The exact text is "Für mich ist dieses Buch das Meisterwerk an Aussagekraft und Handwerkskunst schlechthin“, unterstreicht der Künstler." (In Enlish: "For me, this book is the quintessential masterpiece of expressiveness and craftsmanship," the artist undescores.) The article is full of nonsense and self-contradictions, BTW. The claim that nobody has managed to make copies of the folios is simply false, see Helen Campbell D'Olier. Kleff claims to be familiar with the technique (Zwar war er mit der Technik der Frühchristlichen Buchmalerei vertraut), but turns out to be new to painting on parchment. Kleff claims that it is impossible erase something on parchment. That's not quite right; see palimpsest for example. He also claims very high pigment prices (Bei einigen Farbmitteln muß man für ein Kilogramm mehrere tausend Mark bezahlen”), but fails to note that one doesn't need kilograms of the stuff. Yes, Lapis Lazuli isn't exactly cheap, but one typically buys it by the ounce, for somewhere around $50. 50 grams of Malachite will set you back $70. Also note that the source, Paulinus, is a publication of the Bisdom of Trier, that also operates the Bischöfliches Dom- und Diözesanmuseum where the facsimiles were exhibited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexations (talk • contribs)
Comment To the publisher without a name. That is interesting. How can this 2018 article Helen Campbell D'Olier be without reference links on Wikipedia? Regards Meow2021 (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? It's got four, two of which are independent book references. - MrOllie (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Surely. I mean all of the text with no links... every line I've created is commented. There is also a reference to an independent book. Regards Meow2021 (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is about quality of sources, not just quantity. - MrOllie (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commenting on the new references The first ref is a PR piece, it is a complete PUFF piece article on Kleff's daughter and is very low-quality as a source. It is not independent. Also in the section Excellent Relationships it states: Excellent relationships

Meow is a professional business woman with excellent relationships with the authorities and the government. And our project THE TOUCH does really break new ground in terms of design, value and customer satisfaction and takes the real estate industry to a new level.”. So with the username Meow2021, your Mario Kleff's wife with a clear WP:COI. I'll need to post this up to the coin noticeboard. scope_creepTalk 11:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Did you even read? The following information that I found on the Wandeegroup website is not used to verify the article. Who please, Kleff's wife ??? Regards Meow2021 (talk) 12:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The 2nd re f from the Paulinus-Blatt, a Catholic religious magazine covers aspects of the work done by Kleff on the 17 folios of the Book of Kells. It covers the work he did,and is more in-depth. It is probably good to prove he worked on the Book. scope_creepTalk 11:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should discuss this with the author of the article. Not only do you seem unsatisfied with links to information provided, you are questioning their content. However, I've looked a little more. Lapis Lazuli pigment 1kg 20.262,73 €* [71] Meow2021 (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meow2021 That's a funny example. Kremer makes beautiful pigments, but this particular version you quote (did you just pick the most expensive one?) is created by a process that hadn't been invented when the Book of Kells was created. And no, I don't have to take this up with the author of the article. If I can show that a source is full of errors and inconsistencies and is used to make a claim that it doesn't support, then we don't make that claim. Reliability of sources is contextual. We can use Paulinus for some claims, but not others. In this case, it cannot be used to say that "by 1997 had copied around 30 pages on parchment using equipment and pigment he manufactured himself for authenticity." He uses tools that are not "authentic". Kleff uses "eine spezielle Stahlfeder, die feinste, dies im Fachhandel gibt", A Stahlfeder is a steep dip pen, a 19th century invention. He also didn't make his own pigments, but bought those from a store, and he didn't make his own parchment, because he bought that from a store too. He did apparently prepare his own binders, which is a common practice, I do that too when I prepare a the gesso and bole for a water-gilded frame. It is nothing especially notable, just cooking glue (frequently from parchment BTW). What we can use Paulinus as a source for is to say that Kleff, a graphic designer, took up reproducing the Book of Kells as a hobby around 1990, and by 1997 had created copies of fifteen folios. Several of those copies were included in the 1997 exhibition Glanz des Mittelalters: Kostbare Faksimile aus Trierer Bibliotheken in the Bischöfliches Dom- und Diözesanmuseum [de]. As another aside, if people are interested in a comparison between a copy and the original, these links https://wandeegroup.com/pdf/mario-kleff-book-of-kells.pdf (the fact that it was printed on newsprint doesn't help, but one can still see what he did there) with https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/KellsFol032vChristEnthroned.jpg (not a good photo) or https://digitalcollections.tcd.ie/concern/folios/n296wz391?locale=en (very high quality photo). And lastly, for those of you who are curious to know if one really needs a kilogram of Lapis Lazuli at a cost of €20.262,73 to reproduce the Book of Kells, I recommend [1] The quick answer to that is the same as whether any this makes Kleff a suitable encyclopedic subject: Hell, no.

References

  1. ^ Fuchs, Robert; Oltrogge, Doris (1992). O'Mahony, Felicity (ed.). "Colour material and painting technique in the Book of Kells" (PDF). Proceedings of a conference at Trinity College Dublin 6-9 September 1992. Trinity College Library.

Vexations (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations Why this comment? I haven't written any of the articles found on the internet, I created the article on Kleff but tried to review the information because I don't like how hard some editors try to delete every version of it. I also checked your feedback on pigment prices and found that you weren't entirely right about it. For me there is factual information about Kleff's architectural designs as well as about his work on the Book of Kells. Then you deleted the names of his children? Now you explain to me what the Book of Kells is about? Weird. Meow2021 (talk) 03:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stop making false claims about what I wrote. Last warning. Our next stop is WP:AN/I. Vexations (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do it, I have nothing to hide. Article history shows. By the way... What was the first warning? Meow2021 (talk) 01:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aww, c'mon you two... Do things really have to get uncivil and degraded to the level of finger-pointing and bickering? :-( ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First warning was https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Meow2021&type=revision&diff=1038246050&oldid=1038027761&diffmode=source Vexations (talk) 02:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To your information: An editor on this talk page has included poorly sourced information in the article. Got it removed. Interesting is that the same editor voted Delete - promotional article and, as per MrOlllie, most of the sources are native advertising, therefore the subject lacks independent coverage.. Why? Regards Meow2021 (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ABOUTSELF, self published sources may be used for information about themselves. But do note that such sourcing cannot be used to establish notability. Please do keep this page focused on discussions about notability. If you have general questions about Wikipedia editing you should take them up on the article talk page or perhaps at WP:TEAHOUSE. - MrOllie (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MrOllie This is a discussion page about the article and there is more to it than just notability. So I'm curious why this editing happened. Regards Meow2021 (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Meow2021, your description of "Got it removed" implies that someone else removed it, whereas actually you removed it yourself. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I delayed !voting until I had looked at other sites - all of which are highly-promotional (self-promotional, self-congratulatory), even using similar intro lines as appear on WP. Wikipedia is therefore being used in the same promotional way; this is just one article of many associated with Kleff, Kleff's business and/or the area in which it operates. Two images at Commons (one, two) are also visible at (Kleff's) Instagram landing page (Google as direct link is volatile). I don't have access so unaware if there's any licensing. The background is a commercial construction business (endeavouring to recover after COVID) operating in a developing holiday area (Pattaya/Chonburi). The unblock-argument gives an angle on lack of notability at User talk:Meow2021#August 2021 "... there is little to no information in the press in the Chonuri area, so I sourced as best as I could.", ([SIC], should be Chonburi) shown as a diff as there are two User Talk Headings named "August 2021".--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for closer. Meow2021 has been blocked indefinitely for undisclosed COI/paid editing. They're the only registered account with a k**p vote and have been the only one advancing an argument against deletion for this article. All the other k**p votes have been SPAs just to vote on this AfD. I think a consensus for d*lete is clear at this point. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2021 (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.
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. ✗plicit 09:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pallav Pandey

Pallav Pandey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. References are mostly about his company's fundraising or startup churnalism from unreliable sources. M4DU7 (talk) 06:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 06:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 06:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2021 (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.
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. ✗plicit 12:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Fitzpatrick

Joel Fitzpatrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are claims to notability here, but I don't know that the coverage is quite enough (small mentions). Has been in CAT:NN's backlog for 12 years; hopefully we can resolve it now, either way. Boleyn (talk) 09:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Some of the references are gossip-kind-of-talk. Others are 404, which is simply link-rot over time. Hush Puppies were pushed really hard in their time, but he doesn't GNG for them nor the basset hound on the roof. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:28, 15 August 2021 (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.
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. The argument to keep based on WP:NPOL is not unreasonable, but this is not a clear-cut application of that guideline, and as such it cannot override the other concerns, or indeed the argument that this individual does not meet NPOL. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qadhi Saeed Almurooshid

Qadhi Saeed Almurooshid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable/ Based on a single press release, None of the positions imply notability, and no reason to think any other ones would be substantial 3rd party reliable published sources, not press releases or blogs or postings or mere notices DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: Assessing using WP:NPOL, I think his position as an Executive Councilor for the Emirate of Dubai may meet NPOL. Despite having the term "executive" in its title, the Executive Council seems like a legislative body (its Arabic Wikipedia entry, note the line "The Executive Council proposes and approves government policies and laws. It also supervises the implementation of local and federal laws, the establishment of government agencies, and the follow-up of their performance."). If I'm interpreting that correctly to mean that it's a legislative body, then the subject passes WP:NPOL. However, I'm !voting with weak keep because I may be incorrect with that assertion. Curbon7 (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing indicates this fellow is an elected politician. It appears he is a successful businessman appointed to an executive council. Nothing here meets GNG. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly a prominent government member, director general of the Dubai Health Authority among other things. Googling قاضي المروشد gives plenty results. --Soman (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. DGG. Curbon7's logic can be considered because UAE is not a democratic country. -Hatchens (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
even were it a democratic country, none of the positions he held would usually be elected positions. They're just administrative appointments. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Prior to its nomination for deletion, this article was arguably vandalised, with an edit on 29 March removing 8/9ths of the content and all but one of its references and citations. The individual is clearly a public figure with a quite publicly documented track record of service in positions of authority within government (elected or not). Iskandar_323 (talk) 7:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
The material removed was a large mass of blatant promotionalism, with extensive name dropping of every possible dignitary, and incredible claims to have had magnificent success in everything he ever worked on. It's conceivable there may be a few valid references in among this, but the material was removed by a reliable and experienced editor, and was the only possible way to rescue what would have otherwise been a clear G11 DGG ( talk ) 21:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 06:00, 16 August 2021 (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.
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 no consensus due to lack of participation. Daniel (talk) 09:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Cleveland

Brad Cleveland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure about notability. A quick Google search shows plenty of self-published sources (the subject's website, Twitter, LinkedIn...) rather than third party sources. –FlyingAce✈hello 17:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Third party sources now added to the article. –FlyingAce✈hello 21:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. –FlyingAce✈hello 17:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. –FlyingAce✈hello 17:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Not sure how I go about this, but I did update the page in visual mode and lost the sources that have been present since 2011. I have reverted back to an older version without today's changes. I will try to edit the article and retain/improve the sources. Thank you. (Msblair74 (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC))[reply]

trout Self-trout – I should have checked the history as well. The article still needs clean up, though – for instance, the Amazon link should be removed from the body of the article. –FlyingAce✈hello 21:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Msblair74: I have to ask, though, do you have any relation to the subject of the article? If so, please take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, particularly the section on how to disclose a COI. –FlyingAce✈hello 21:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm unsure on notability as well. I don't see sources that show notability per WP:GNG - the best sources in the article (NYTimes, NPR, etc) seem to only quote him or mention him in passing. I couldn't find book reviews that would allow him to pass WP:AUTHOR. My only question is: could he pass WP:ACADEMIC? (It's the one notability guideline I don't have a good grasp on.) If not, I'm thinking this should be deleted unless other sources can be found. - Whisperjanes (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 08:57, 28 August 2021 (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.
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 no consensus with no prujudice against speedy renomination. Only !vote was by an editor who disclosed a connection with the person in question. No other views expressed despite 2 relists. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tandy Trower

Tandy Trower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article, most text added by a series of SPAs. The purpose appears to be to publicise his robotics company. Grandiose claims of notability and considerable biographical detail, but a paucity of independent third-party sources to back any of this. A WP:BEFORE shows passing coverage of the robotics firm. We don't have the necessary depth of coverage in independent RSes to sustain a BLP here. PROD removed by one of the SPAs, but adding a few new sources that were still not independent RSes. David Gerard (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: I have known Tandy since 2006 and can confirm his career since then. I worked in the Microsoft Robotics Group. I did some of the editing for Microsoft Robotics Developer Studio on Wikipedia but I am not an experienced Wikipedia author. (Just look at how many edits it takes me to get things right!) Tandy asked me to create a page for him as a favor (quite a while ago). He provided much of the content.

Facts:

Tandy worked at Microsoft from 1981 to 2009. See citations in the article for History of Microsoft 1981 and The 20 Year Club.

He was asked by Bill Gates to investigate Robotics and later appointed as the General Manager of the Robotics Group. See the citation for the Scientific American article written by Bill Gates in 2008.

As a GM he routinely interacted with the press and was the spokesperson for Microsoft Robotics Developer Studio. Google "Tandy Trower".

Tandy formed Hoaloha Robotics to develop robots for elder care and is still working towards that today.

Claims:

Tandy's claims of his early work are difficult to substantiate because they pre-date the Internet and Microsoft does not attribute work to individuals, e.g. his work on design guidelines for Windows applications, his specs for Windows 1.0 desktop apps. These claims might have to be removed from the article.

His claims regarding Robotics are accurate and his position at Microsoft made him a notable person in the industry at the time who was sought after for commentary and interviews/podcasts.

Summary:

I propose that the article be retained, possibly with some material removed. I ask for guidance on that.

Trevor Taylor — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrevorTaylor (talk • contribs) 00:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise I had to sign my comments. This is all new to me. TrevorTaylor (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2021 (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.
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. Disregarding the argumentless "vote" by Multi7001. Sandstein 08:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Deters

Eric Deters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NAUTHOR, fails WP:NARTIST, fails WP:ANYBIO. Makes the news regularly on some (same) local papers which is expected of a controversial lawyer; fails WP:NOTNEWS. Sources invariably go "there is this thing in our city/state, and this lawyer said this about it, and by the way, that lawyer was disbarred" or "there is this thing and that lawyer that was disbarred is involved in it too". Not in the article: some local coverage for racist remarks[72] and association with Trump campaign[73], but no WP:SIGCOV. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeps above are talking about news about the subject getting disbarred and subsequent attempts to get reinstated which failed; no dedicated coverage of the battle or the person, just news on the updates: disbarment, appeal, rejection, appeal, rejection, ... None of the sources are SIGCOV, and we need SIGCOV as there is no WP:NLAWYER.
    I would invite editors to consider the subject in the context of an encyclopedia with a selective inclusion criteria. (Even when there is SIGCOV but especially without,) a person is notable for doing something significant or being a major part of something significant, the infamous "best known for" if you will. What is the significant achievement of the subject? "A lawyer who got disbarred and then appealed and appealed all of which failed"? Following the legal recourse provided in every country with a functional justice system does not make one notable, not unless they win in the end and it leads to significant reform with regard to whatever went wrong. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2021 (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.
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 no consensus (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Radwan

Sam Radwan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article doesn't make the case for its own existence. The subject is noted as having been published and quoted in major media, but not themselves being the subject of reporting by that media. A Google News search seems to confirm this. The subject is quoted in snippets in articles that are about other things. BD2412 T 02:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 02:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: The person is mentioned in numerous reliable sources in the US including CNBC, The Financial Times, WSJ, etc. These are high profile sources where he is being quoted on the subject as an expert. I note that he is not the main subject of any of these articles and this page needs substantial improvement. My vote is to keep since as per WP:GNG, these qualify as reliable sources, there are 5+ of them, and to qualify for significant coverage the subject "does not need to be the main topic of the source material." CosmicNotes (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I think BD2412 is correct here. My searches find nothing that goes beyond the sort of trivial mentions that don't count toward the GNG; interviewing and being interviewed don't move the notability needle. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:21, 14 August 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Businesspeople&oldid=1039726270"