Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas K. Wright

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. MBisanz ^talk 23:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas K. Wright

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim of notability. Being president of a notable org doesn't make this subject notable. Nothing in the article asserts notability. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom, plus the org itself is of questionable notability; tagged. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete I could not find any significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Agree with Staszek Lem that even the organization might not be notable. ArchieOof (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with nom. Even the references in the article amount to practically nothing. Ref1 is a press report from the organization announcing he is becoming president - but it is cited as a Wall Street Journal article. Ref2 is a paper he supposedly "edited" but I did see his name mentioned, and Ref3 is a dead link. Also noted article created by a SPA. Should have been gone with the PROD. MB 23:55, 28 August 2016 (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.