Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carolus Nolet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Spinningspark (talk | contribs) at 12:18, 19 January 2022 (→‎Carolus Nolet: Closed as redirect (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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 redirect to Ketel One. without deletion. Anything worth merging can be found in the history. No bar to a more substantial article being written in the future if suitable sources can be found. SpinningSpark 12:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carolus Nolet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find evidence that he passes WP:GNG. The only source provided in the article is a forbes list of billionaires which is not enough to show notability. WP:BEFORE search hampered by his son also having the same name. I couldn't find evidence that he has notability outside of the company that he is chairman of. Possible redirect target would be Ketel One. Suonii180 (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is he "just a billionaire", as you say, or also an accomplished business leader? Maybe read up a bit on the subject? gidonb (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a useful data point plus reference. There are many more possible sources. This business leader (in this AfD belittled to just a rich man) passes the WP:GNG. Per WP:NEXIST, Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. The bold is in the source. But all that does not matter. Since the article is so short, we should merge anyway. gidonb (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2022 (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.