Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Biddle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 07:56, 13 February 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). 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 delete. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 12:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Biddle[edit]

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

The company may be notable, but I don;t see how he is. The award is minor: it's the award of a single city. DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a bit harsh. He's founded a major international company, is consulted by governments about environmental and sustainability policies, and is regularly asked to be a speaker at panel discussions and events. It's also a bit more difficult to demonstrate notability for business leaders as they don't necessarily receive the same level of media coverage as entertainment personalities, but their impact on the world is considerably greater.G2003 (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources are mostly about his business. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per the above, most of the coverage seems to be about their business. Number 57 13:32, 4 February 2014 (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.