Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis R. Wraase
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 06:25, 8 February 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 06:25, 8 February 2022 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dennis R. Wraase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
A user contested the prod. All that I can find is trivial mentions of him in articles that are about the company. Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - if properly formatted, this article would be nothing more than a list.keystoneridin! (talk) 05:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable chief executive officer of major U.S. corporation. Has testified before Congress. I would be okay with merging to the company's article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not all CEOs are notable, not even all people who testify in front of Congress. Minimal independent third party coverage. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig R. Smith. Hairhorn (talk) 02:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. CEOs of Fortune 500 companies generally meet the GNG, although coverage is not necesarily in easily accessed online sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep remember, there is a difference between "verifiable" and "verified" -- this information is all verifiable and certainly notable on GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, if it is verifiable, where are the sources? We can't keep this article simply on the presumption of sources. Nyttend (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2009 (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.