Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Newman (Cyber security entrepreneur)

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. Sandstein 07:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Newman (Cyber security entrepreneur)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I just can't see how this person is notable by our standards. The sources in our article are very poor – at least three do not mention him at all, one is an "interview", presumably actually an exchange of emails, five are Google patents search results. I've already removed crunchbase and prnewswire. He gets a few hits on GNews, several of them to press-releases, but neither as many or as solid as, for example the ticket tout of the same name. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! This is not the Andrew Newman. When I was looking for personalities, Microsoft stumbled upon this person. --Arxivist (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Using patents as refs are very very poor, and I think illegal on here. Highly promotional. Fail WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 11:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Suited to: The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Hello @Atlantic306:! I saw your input and suggested that you know the reason for the article to be saved. Tell, please. Thanks! --Arxivist (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi,it's not my area so I'll let others decide, except it does not qualify for speedy deletion Atlantic306 (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am unable to find substantive coverage in reliable sources, or any other evidence of notability. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The given articles don't look like they count towards demonstrating that the subject passes WP:GNG. I also found this interview, but it's from the community feed of Spiceworks which doesn't really count as a reliable source. There are some other small articles about some of the projects and startups that he has worked on in the past, but none are significant coverage about him from reliable sources.
The claim for point 2 of WP:ANYBIO mentioned above is also unconvincing, as the footnote for that point reads Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians — MarkH21 (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2019 (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.