Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Businesspeople

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Businesspeople. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Businesspeople|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Businesspeople. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

This list is included in more general lists of business-related deletions and people for deletion.

Businesspeople

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 Qwiki. Sandstein 18:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Imbruce

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable entrepreneur. He is associated with one notable entity, Qwiki, but not independently notable. Article copy is mostly about the company. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions, WP:SPIP and / or not independent of the company. The company has been acquired in 2013; the subject does not appear to have done anything notable in other ventures since. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The editor nominating this article for deletion cannot justify that this article refers to a person who is not notable. The individual clearly obtained many press mentions over a lengthy period of time, as demonstrated in the RS, including three mentions as "Highest in class" awards - as the winner of TechCrunch Disrupt, and being named on "Top 100" lists by Business Insider over a number of years - for achievements on opposite coasts. The article also clearly states the individual is currently active as an investor, with investments current as of 2018, including many best in class companies (IE, "Uber"). With so many RS, the deletion of this article (which has existed since 2010) is puzzling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.109.165 (talk) 04:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note Section subheaders are unhelpful in AfD discussions, as they add a confusing ToC entry to any page in which this page is transcluded. I have removed the section subheader from the above comment. Bakazaka (talk) 05:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Qwiki. I was going to say merge, but there really is very little substantial, independent coverage of the person as opposed to their business. What he is known and covered for is Qwiki, that's where the name should point you. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Qwiki, as per Elimdae. Searches did not turn up significant coverage about him. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment: I'm not a fan of redirecting nn BLPs to company names; the company article may get merged, while the name would still link there. Additionally, the redirects had been undone on a fairly regular basis in the past, including most recently by an apparently involved / COI-driven IP who commented at the top of the nomination. I would go with a "delete" for these two reasons. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, although for the latter motivation that would only make a difference in combination with salting. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - The subject has only accrued passing mentions in WP:RS, mostly due to his association with Qwiki. Content directly concerning the individual is all either trivial or as a part of listings, indicating a WP:SIGCOV failure.--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then redirect- He fails WP:GNG for lack of secondary sources coverage that is WP:SIGCOV. Like the nominator has said, just redirecting this article alone would not be a great choice because someone can just revert it back (without also even noticing the one who did a redirect). I feel delete then redirect should be more often with AfD closures in my opinion, exactly because redirects can be easily reverted. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2018 (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.

The editor nominating this article for deletion cannot justify that this article refers to a person who is not notable. The individual clearly obtained many press mentions over a lengthy period of time, as demonstrated in the RS, including three mentions as "Highest in class" awards - as the winner of TechCrunch Disrupt, and being named on "Top 100" lists by Business Insider over a number of years - for achievements on opposite coasts. The article also clearly states the individual is currently active as an investor, with investments current as of 2018, including many best in class companies (IE, "Uber"). With so many RS, the deletion of this article (which has existed since 2010) is puzzling.

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Lipsett

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

Regardless of any possible notability, this is promotionalism. The references are the usual sort of notices and press releases, as expected for people whose career depends on them. we don't have to jhelp them at it. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - so he's micro-celebrity and this article is just one big advert for him. Spleodrach (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does it not make more sense to edit it rather than delete it then? Sone3452 (talk) 09:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note you wrote the article. Are you connected with the subject? In answer to your question, his only claim to fame is he has a large number of followers on various social media; definite delete. Spleodrach (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No connection was done rather as part of a university assignment, I rather choose to believe that Wikipedia has a habit of ignoring the importance of the "field" if you will, of the social media micro-celebrities. Whilst I would whole heartedly concede it is ridiculous to include every social media 'micro-celebrity', it would be equally foolish to ignore the more notable ones and in turn ignore the 'field' as a whole, as it's one of the fastest growing, influential, fields of study in todays social media dominated world.Sone3452 (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No apparent notability; clearly promotional and would take a heck of a lot of work to make it otherwise.Deb (talk) 09:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would refer you to bellow where I discussed the notion of the notability of the larger micro-celebrity and question how someone with a growing reach of almost a million people has less notability in todays growing world than obscure Irish poets or outdated movies.Sone3452 (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- However, I will delete the sentence containing a blatant advertisement for a forthcoming event. Deb (talk) 09:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think this is a prime example of someone having their passing 15 minutes of fame. Nearly all the major attention he received was over a short period of time when competing on a television series. Now his only claim to notability is having a large number of social media followers. Unfortunately, that doesn't quite satisfy our standards. The promotional tone isn't quite G11-worthy but is definitely a violation of NPOV. SITH (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of his fame as a micro-celebrity came before he was featured on any television show, and I think the notion that you would dismiss someone's notability who interacts with close to a million people on a perpetual basis, because of the branding 'micro celebrity' is somewhat foolish. If you choose to consider the reach and impact of these individuals, whilst choosing to mark obscure Irish poets as notable (for example), you risk the chance of becoming outdated and irrelevant. With modern influence and the age of social media, notions like Bourdieu’s theory of the rise of celebrity (1993) have become outdated and rather it is rather apparent that the notability of 'micro-celebrities' in terms of their influence has surpassed that of the traditional celebrity and consequently the idea of a micro-celebrity with a reach of almost 1 million people not being considered notable is a notion that asks do you consider the notability of significant 'micro-celebrities' or risk getting left behind.Sone3452 (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sone3452: I'm just interpreting the guidelines as they exist. If you want to change the policy, you could always start a conversation at WT:ANYBIO or WP:VPP. SITH (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." If you consider his field to be social media influencing, fitness or micro-celebrity, it's hard to make an argument that he doesn't make a widely recognised contribution to it.Sone3452 (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2018 (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.

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. Randykitty (talk) 12:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mahayogi Akshar Nath

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

Promotional article with insufficient evidence of significant independent coverage. Most sources are press releases, the subject's own website, or various advertorials. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 20:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 19:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PROMO for yoga master with very tricky moves fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2018 (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.

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. Randykitty (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ignasi Puig Claret

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

Insufficient coverage of the subject in reliable sources, does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Several articles mere-mention the subject, and a few quote him, but there doesn't appear to be enough information about Ignasi Puig Claret himself to justify an article–the article as written currently reflects this, as essentially all of the content is about the company the subject founded, SCPF. The only source that appears to provide in-depth coverage of the subject ([1]) does not appear to be a reliable source. I was not able to find additional sources online in English, Spanish, or Catalan. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. I was going to nominate it myself, but now I am double sure, or even double secret sure. scope_creep (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 19:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the article is a translation of its version in Spanish, today I added more information in the article in Spanish, I know I can not edit here directly because my COI, so I ask you if you can add the following information, I hope it is useful:

In 2018 the advertising agency J. Walter Thompson convened him as CEO of the agency MiNY.^[1]^[2]

I was out and did not know that the article had been approved and postulated for deletion on the same day. Puig Claret is one of the most important publicists in Spain, I think the biggest coverage that a publicist can have will be in publications of the advertising industry. Thank you!--Ciprinido75 (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Ciprinido75 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

References

^ "J. Walter Thompson Has Launched MiNY, An All-Inclusive Marketing Firm, To Enhance The Agency's Capabilities - J. Walter Thompson New York". www.jwt.com. Retrieved 2018-11-28.
^ "Uno de los fundadores de *S,C,P,F... dirigirá una boutique creativa de JWT en Nueva York". Dircomfidencial (in European Spanish). 2018-10-15. Retrieved 2018-11-28.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 05:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator's assessment. Both the publications in Spanish and the English advertisingcrossing.com source do not establish or suggest notability. AGK ■ 22:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have commented elsewhere on the number of articles being moved into mainspace and nominated for AfD on the same day - it seems unfortunate, and going against WP:BITE. Here, as 9 of the 15 references have the company name, SCPF, in the headline, it seems possible, as the nominator suggests, that it is the company which is notable (although I think there are different criteria for companies ....), and it might be better to frame the article around the company, with a mini bio of this person (and the others, S, C and F, or whatever). Would it be possible to create that article and redirect this person to that article? or merge? RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2018 (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.

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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Sutherland (advertising)

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

References are made up of Interviews and own work. Fails WP:SECONDARY and WP:BIO. All the references, are written by the subject. There is coverage, but it is him writing or presenting it, except for one instance. scope_creep (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yeah, the references on the page don't appear to support notability FOARP (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find evidence of notability. Vanamonde (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The title of the article is Rory Sutherland advertising. Isn't that exactly what this is ? 2A00:23C4:D885:7F00:E97F:B02F:ADAE:89D (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2018 (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.

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. Despite allowing two additional weeks for discussion after Timtempleton's edits, the consensus has not shifted. – Joe (talk) 06:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory T. Lucier

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

Less than five sources, including routine business directories, are too thin per WP:NBIO to sustain a Wikipedia biography. The creator disclosed this was a paid job and IMO it probably just didn't have enough material. See "Wikipedia’s Top-Secret 'Hired Guns' Will Make You Matter (For a Price)" for paid model explained and why quality/content failures like this occur. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete should have been speedied. Trash. Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not seeing enough quality, in-depth coverage to pass WP:SIGCOV. Furthermore, if one separates (per WP:NOTINHERITED) the subject from the one notable company he was CEO of, he lacks a claim to encyclopedic significance.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mentioned along with NuVasive, Inc. in reliable sources, but that is not considered notable per WP:NOTINHERITED. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very low quality article. scope_creep (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I just added some more sources and removed the press release. The San Diego Union Tribune source calls him "a well known life science executive".[[2]] I know the Life deal he helped broker was huge. I think there's enough now to pass WP:GNG, but I'll look for some more coverage to add tomorrow. Here's more in the meantime - he was considered notable enough that The Boston Globe had a whole article on his compensation in 2009.[[3]] In 2011, he was #12 on Forbe's list of highest paid CEOs.[[4]] TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 02:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added a little more info. For the closer, the comment below and of course all above appear to have come before reviewing my edits. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 03:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; signficant RS coverage not found. Sourcing is in passing, not independent of his company, and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist after major editing done with no further discussion after said edits.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 05:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't want to add it because it will make the article look more like a puff piece to people unfamiliar with the accolade, but Lucier was selected this year by the San Diego Business Journal as one of the San Diego 500. You can read his listing and the qualifications for inclusion here [[5]]. Also, NuVasive, the company for which he's the Chairman of the Board, appears to have enough coverage to demonstrate notability. You can Google them and see the coverage in the San Diego and Dayton, Ohio press. I know notability is not inherited, but taken in context the info does bolster a keep argument. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:37, 28 November 2018 (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.

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. Tone 17:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LD Sharma

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

No assertion of independent notability, fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTINHERITED applies. I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and current sources provide nothing but a passing mention and most of them are not even reliable. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC) @User talk:GSS Sir is there any way to unlive the article so that I can put some references, he is notable person because he is first Indian first Indian who brought affiliate marketing and was interviewed on almost all news channels, I am contacting all the TV news channels who interviewed him, NDTV and INDIA TODAY has agreed to unarchive those videos,[reply]

Delete - The sources used in the article don't support independent notability for Sharma. Instead they only discuss him in the context of the companies he is working for and/or aren't reliable sources. FOARP (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC) @FOARP please mention which sources are not reliable, I would delete them and replace it with authentic references --Neerajmadhuria72014 (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of reliable coverage to pass WP:GNG Spiderone 22:29, 12 November 2018 (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.

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Morton

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

WP:NMODEL No notability. Being mentioned in the New York Times in 1996, doesn’t cut it. Trillfendi (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A fundamentally flawed WP:BEFORE. Multiple profiles in RS, also part of an anorexia controversy in the mid 1990s, easily passes WP:GNG. Some examples: Ritea, Steve (10 March 1997). "Supermodel or No, Her Heart's in Bucks: Annie Morton is on her way, many say". Philadelphia Inquirer. p. B2.; Weale, Sally (3 June 1996). "Women: Look, I'm not that thin: Her pictures in Vogue have put the all-models-are-anorexic argument right back on the front pages". The Guardian. p. T.007.; Baden, Jennifer (2 November 1997). "Who's That Girl". The Sunday Times. p. Style, 46. Bakazaka (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG as per sources.[6] It is possible that some more sources are not online. Orientls (talk) 05:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well if they aren’t online then how are we supposed to establish and verify notability here?Trillfendi (talk) 05:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editors often consult physical copies of books and magazines, microfilm in libraries, and paywalled databases (which is where the above references come from). Editors working on WP:GEO articles even drive around confirming locations. There's no requirement for online sources, and WP:N is clear: "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." If you have a specific reason to doubt the sources that are provided in a discussion, you should raise those specifically. Otherwise most editors seem to assume good faith when sources are provided that they cannot personally confirm. Bakazaka (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2018 (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.

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 10:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chandu Thota

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

Claimed notability is being the found of a company that was acquired by Google in 2011. That's about it. No in-depth coverage to support WP:BIO or WP:GNG, just mentioned a few times in the articles about the acquisition. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing more than passing mentions Spiderone 21:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in the article or my own searches suggests notability. TJRC (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2018 (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.

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 10:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evgeny Lykov

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

Does not pass WP:GNG nor WP:BIO. Seems very promotional in its nature as well, violating WP:PROMO. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom, the article is promotional, has no decent sources, and the individual does not meet WP:NBIO or WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:13, 26 November 2018 (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.

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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator (DGG). (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Koch

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

This poorly-sourced advertisement has been here since 2005. There are two possible courses of action: deleting all the unsourced material and seeing what is left, or just deleting it, and letting someone write a proper article if he is actually notable. The tributes to the books are marketing squibs, not formal reviews.

the combination of clear promotionalism , dubious notability , and unsourced BLP to me indicates the best course would be deletion. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Trillfendi (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you take away the fluff and the unsourced material, you have an unsourced infobox and half a sentence - this is not sufficient for an article. Thryduulf (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I first marked it for AfD, and then realized stubbification is an alternative. So I removed all the unsourced material last night, 8,000 of the 12,000 bytes. What's left are the books. They are important books, from established publishers , and are some of them in over a thousand libraries Word\ldCat--even for popularized business books of this sort, that is quite substantial. It has been translated into at least 10 languages, and there are several high quality reviews listed/ DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sagacious editing by User:DGG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't even know why this was re-listed after the proposer withdrew their nomination. It's sourced, appears ntoable and thus keepable, if not particularly good as an article. FOARP (talk) 13:04, 16 November 2018 (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.

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. Randykitty (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Vidarte

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable entrepreneur. Does not meet WP:BIO; sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/TH_Godrick with no other contributions outside this topic. WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep accomplished award winning business creator. 52 references show much more notability than most Olympic athletes (deemed auto notable) pageant winners who regularly get articles for single title wins. If we are going to delete businessperson articles like this, why not just prohibit all pages on businesspeople or businesses and reserve Wikipedia for entertainers like football players (get an article for playing in a single professional game) and the like. Legacypac (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Forbes 30 under 30 is an example of notability but this page badly needs to be neutralized and copy edited as the templates say.Trillfendi (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment: "30 under 30" is a trivial award. Re: notability of Olympic athletes, that should be discussed at WP:NSPORT and has no bearing on this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references are all about the companies >80%. 30 under 30, is meaningless, and utterly promotional. Forbes produces, I think it is 1470 x under y lists per year, of one sort or another. It is promotional and Non RS. The references are a mix of press releases, churnalism and trade papers, plain business reporting rags, plain churnalism. On top of that I vaguely remember an article of this type, being deleted already, re: the electricity generation by plants. scope_creep (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Forbes 30 under 30 is certainly not trivial and is not just judged by editors at Forbes but by many notable business people. This article may need some clean up, but as of this moment this is a clear keep. Also, why do people that post nothing about business try to delete all of these articles? Also, yes Forbes produces many lists but those lists are mostly made by contributors/guests -- Forbes 30 under 30 is not one of them! User:vanmodhe(talk) 13:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCKSTRIKE, please see User:Vanmodhe. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promo article not showing a clear indication o person's notability.--Darwinek (talk) 12:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Promotional and references are mostly on company, which would be, otherwise, not-notable too. The comments on Olympic athletes are irrelevant, if a flaw is found with the notability of the athletes, that discussion should not be brought here. --1l2l3k (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2018 (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.

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. Tone 21:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gyandeep Borah

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

Non notable business person, no coverage, just listings, fails WP:GNG. Praxidicae (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references are from sites that aggregate company data. No independent RS cited.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG currently Spiderone 20:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. I couldn't find reliable sources to support his notability. --Gprscrippers (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2018 (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.

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. Editors have raised concerns about content in the article, but nothing that has reached a broad opinion to delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Molly DeWolf Swenson

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

No indication of notability. Coverage is either not independent, not reliable, not detailed (with some sources not mentioning Swenson at all), or local news. The tone is promotional, and I'm pretty sure there are errors of fact (that happen to promote Swenson) in there, too. Huon (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Huon. This is a promotional article that is excluded from Wikipedia by WP:NOTSPAM. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important notes from Huon. Making changes to add to overall notability (i.e. Forbes 30 Under 30, RYOT sale for $10-15M), to make language more objective, and to remove sources that do not mention Swenson (some seem to be referencing other entities in the entry rather than her involvement) or that are from unreliable sources (i.e. blogs). Susa8710 (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just checked the sources added by Susa8710. I don't think they suffice to establish notability; most are more passing mentions. Huon (talk) 10:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Susa8710. Didn’t see previous entry but this is all totally notable. Sources include New Yorker, multiple features in Variety, Tech Crunch, Forbes, Entrepreneur Magazine, etc. Won Emmy per IMDb. She was also on primetime TV for American Idol. No reason to delete this entry. Also just found another feature in AdWeek about her, more than a passing mention. Will add to entry.Frogman237 (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Contrary to what Tony believes, I don't think that this article is spam. It doesn't have the characteristics of a spam article and provides adequate claims to notability (company sold to corporation, etc.). After cleaning, promotional language has been cut down by editors and can most likely be cleaned more. A simple Google search of the subject yields articles she was the subject of in sources like AdWeek Magazine ^[1] and on HuffPost ^[2] as well as a Yahoo News article about her ^[3] (her face is plastered on the headline of this one). I feel that the subject was not posted in any form of "spam" attempt and the evidence presented from basic research definitely proves notability. WillPeppers (talk) 04:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep It is difficult to understand the rationale for deletion, stating that there is "no indication of notability" - a simple news search unearths dozens of reliable sources including AdWeek, the New Yorker, Variety, Forbes, Entrepreneur Magazine, and the list goes on. BTW, she is an Emmy award winner as per IMDb. The nomination was made without appropriate research. Netherzone (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the AdWeek and HuffPo sources listed by WillPeppers are by Swenson, not independent coverage of her. Yahoo is a copy of reference 14 already listed in the article, not anything new. Also, the Emmy is... dubious. Swenson was a "coordinating producer" (one of two, apparently, along with a host of other producers and executive producers) of a documentary that apparently won a Documentary Emmy. I couldn't verify that Swenson herself won anything. Huon (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some of the sources presented herein have been disputed in terms of their independence of the subject. More input needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whether this article is kept or not, at the very least the "Emmy Winning Producer" claim should be edited out. Producer credits are handed out like candy by production companies. There is no such thing as an Emmy for Coordinating Producers. Emmy recognition is given to Producers and Executive producers. A winning production, for a fee, can after the fact purchase additional awards for select members of the crew at their discretion, but it is not the same as being recognized by the Emmy organization. Nor can entries to IMDB be considered a reliable source. To present oneself in such case as an Emmy Winner Producer is little more than self-promoting resume padding. ShelbyMarion (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For ShelbyMarion and Huon: Here is the official list of Emmy nominees for 2017 that includes Swenson ^[1] under credits for Body Team 12 (along with only a handful of people listed, including Paul G Allen and Olivia Wilde, not handed out "like candy," at least not in this case), and a photo of her Emmy with her name and Coordinating Producer credit on it. ^[2] It is true that you can request additional statues after the fact but they do not come with the name and credit engraved onto it unless the producer was originally nominated. Coordinating Producer is in fact an Emmy-eligible credit, per Emmy rules ^[3] Susa8710 (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep She has coverage in reliable secondary sources (not passing mentions) in Harvard Magazine, Yahoo, Variety, AdWeek (the one in the article, not the non indepedent one that was posted here), while having a mention in Forbes in 2017 30 Under 30. Even if I discount Entrepreteur (which is a significant coverage) for being a trivial source, and non WP:SIGCOV sources like The New Yorker, CMO and lots of American Idol related references that are all passing mentions...she still passes WP:GNG easily. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For ShelbyMarion and Huon Molly's move to Maverick to represent artists and support their impact and sustainability initiatives was also the subject of significant media coverage by recognized and reputed news outlets, further lending to the page's notability and her personal credibility. https://variety.com/2018/music/news/maverick-molly-dewolf-swenson-ryot-live-nation-1202728991/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexisPeng (talk • contribs) 00:09, 20 November 2018 (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.

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ibukun Jegede

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

Article has been tagged for notability since 2011. Subject does not appear notable as a businessperson or model – none of their companies has a Wikipedia article and I am not convinced that their modelling achievements count as "well-known and significant" awards or honours as specified by WP:ANYBIO. Nor do they appear to satisfy WP:NMODEL. The most in-depth sources currently cited in the article are two interviews with minor and/or regional news outlets (the Nottingham Post interview is a dead link but can still be accessed via archive.org). My Google search for "Ibukun Jegede" turned up 84 results, the most prominent of which were the subject's own websites, LinkedIn, YouTube, other social media and similar interviews. The article creator seems to have a strong COI as well: [7]. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 13:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it's either an autobiography or a paid editing puff piece for a non-notable individual, trying to use Wikipedia to become notable. I went through the article a couple of days ago, removing unsourced puffery and exaggerations (including the self-awarded title "Dr."; see page history), and found that the only claim in the article that was resonably reliably sourced was about having received a minor modelling award, everything else in the article was, if sourced at all, sourced only to the subject's own websites and/or interviews (without editorial comments) of the subject, i.e. to the subject himself. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 23:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely fails WP:BASIC. Sources provided lacks editorial control, she does not appear notable nor meet any of the criteria’s per WP:MODEL.

- TESH | Is Nutin 14:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soltesh (talk • contribs)

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.

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 keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Miller

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

This is a mess...looks to have been written by the article subject, and is a promotional resume. And no, AFD isn't clean up, but this guy doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG either. I'm not seeing any sufficient sourcing. This article isn't adding to the encyclopedia and we don't need it. Marquardtika (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Major nuclear defense policy expert. While it is true that someone named Milleredit created the aritcle, it seems unlikely that a policy wonk working at this level stooped to creating his own WP article. But even if he did, it does not negate the fact that he is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 11:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 11:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 11:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 11:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are claims here that would qualify him for an article if he could be properly referenced as getting over WP:GNG for them — but the only "reference" being cited here at all is his "our staff" profile on the self-published website of his own current employer. The article states nothing about him that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be sourced much better than this, however, and even going all the way back to its initial creation in 2006 it's never been sourced any better than this — the only other reference this article has ever cited at all was his "our staff" profile on the self-published website of a different former employer, which is not a notability boost. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Searching Franklin Miller Scowcroft turns up a lot of sourcing. The Scowcroft Group, Atlantic Council and post in the George W. White House make it almost certain that article can be sourced. and, as Nom says, WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP, our job is to determine the notability of the subject. Searching without the middle initial, and with keywords like "nuclear" in WaPo, NYTimes, gScholar and elsewhere turns up copious confirmation of notability. And gBooks, look at this search on: Franklin Miller nuclear (no "_") in gBooks [8]: "Franklin Miller is both the father and the architect of the U.S.-UK dialogue on nuclear weapons policy...", "As principal deputy assistant secretary, Franklin C. Miller is a civil servant who has been the nuclear major domo in the ...", "Former National Security Council and Defense Department official Franklin Miller (who played a key role in U.S. nuclear policy for the past two decades) said in ...", and more, similar. Article needs expansion, improvement. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEY I have started improving and expanding the article. Yes, the article began as as PROMO, (at a guess, someone who works for him wrote it,) But it's not like he's some unknown actor, or PR professional. He has been a major player in nuclear arms policy for decades. And, yes, sourcing was lousy when page was brought to AfD. But WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. The question here, as always, is whether sources exist. I will continue to expand, but I urge editors to search books and news archives using keywords, especially "nuclear."E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs a discussion about E.M.Gregory recent edits to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am no nuclear weapon strategy expert. However, what does make such experts notable is producing ideas and policies with which serious people engage in policy journals like Foreign Affairs: The Problem With NATO's Nukes; The American Interest: [ https://www.the-american-interest.com/2014/01/30/russia-flouts-landmark-cold-war-treaty/Obama's Putin Problem Russia Flouts Landmark Cold War Treaty, Our Year of Living Dangerously]; and more. Here are searches on him in the Washington Post: [[9]], [10] one as "Franklin Miller, other as Franklin C. Miller.'E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Article can be cleaned up and person is notable. Sammartinlai (talk) 05:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Holders of an Honorary KBE are certainly notable per WP:ANYBIO #1. We have always held that CBEs (the grade below KBE) or above meet the criteria. Honorary knighthoods are not that commonly awarded to foreign nationals and are only awarded to very senior people. And it appears that he does have one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The KBE satisfies WP:ANYBIO, and he also seems to satisfy WP:POLOUTCOMES. Atchom (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2018 (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.

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 13:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Stroud

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

Not finding multiple instances of independent, significant coverage in reliable sources. There are some interviews around (e.g. [11]), which are primary, and do not establish notability, but otherwise, not finding source coverage to qualify an article as per WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- as per the nominator fails WP:BASIC. FitIndia ^Talk 18:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:34, 10 November 2018 (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.

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 Nu Skin Enterprises. MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Lund

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

Per source searches, this subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Searches are only providing passing mentions and quotations in reliable sources. Could be redirected to Nu Skin Enterprises. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nu Skin Enterprises. He's not notable in his own right. SITH (talk) 14:18, 16 November 2018 (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.

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 12:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

W. Don Ladd

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

Non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC, as per WP:BEFORE source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the arguments gven in simlar discussions. If North America truly disagreed with the bishop's view, he would take on the only sourced to a bare-bones date listing blog articles on bishops, instead of sourced to full bio articles written by third parties articles as we have on these general authorities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Regarding the above !vote:

It does not provide a valid rationale for article retention.
Its thesis is utterly unclear; this article and deletion nomination is about W. Don Ladd, not some other subject.
Primary sources are just not usable to establish notability.
There is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see this article passing WP:GNG at all, I also think that Johnpacklambert has created a huge amount of these articles a lot of them failing current basic GNG and seems to have a conflict of interest with wikipedia over Latter Day Saints. Govvy (talk) 09:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of the personally-directed accusations are necessary to discuss the notability of the article's subject, so it's probably more fruitful to focus on whether there is significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, since that is the basis for nomination. It might also be helpful for Johnpacklambert to clarify what "arguments above" means, since the only thing above that comment is a nomination for deletion and some delsorts. Perhaps a copy/paste to the wrong discussion? Bakazaka (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 14:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant independent coverage found. I don't see any convincing claim of notability, or any real prospect of being able to source an article properly. --Michig (talk) 10:40, 24 November 2018 (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.

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Bastien

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

Page was created by subject and by those personally connected to subject. Has not demonstrated they are discernibly notable and is instead purposefully pushing his own business. Larsfisherman (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable business person who has founded non notable businesses. The article just says he founded some businesses. Too few sources. Does not satisfy WP:BIO. 2 of the 4 sources are for his manage proposal and not his business activity. WP:TOSOON. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:27, 15 November 2018 (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.

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 10:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Cassell

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

Shameless self-promotion by single edit creator. Article is an orphan, perhaps emphasising how after almost 3 years it still hasn't found a place or integrated in here (because it doesn't belong on an encyclopaedia).

The subject is a pick-up artist (teaches dating to men) of some degree of success within this field, but not enough to justify a page - i.e. doesn't pass GNG. There does not appear to be significant coverage about him in reliable, independent publications. There's some stuff on esoteric sites dedicated to that field, and there's some stuff including an article he penned in a publication of note, but that's a one-off of him commenting on something that happened in that was noteworthy. overall i don't think any of them standalone can be considered significant nor is the sum of scraps anywhere near something significant

As an example of someone else in the industry (who doesn't have a page, perhaps because of notability issues too), here's a comparison of metrics which I appreciate isn't quite how notability/GNG works, but does help paint an overall picture
Kezia Noble vs Johnny Cassell
facebook fans: 266,228 vs 19,855
twitter: 15,500 vs 9,360
youtube subscribers: 391,920 vs 11,932

that should illustrate that the subject is several status levels below a peer from the same industry who has not yet been considered notable by any editor enough to warrant an article. The only reason this joke of an article (the weaselly content) exists is because someone with no connection or interest in this encyclopaedia made a one-off 'contribution', most likely to promote the subject and give it the illusion of importance and independent recognition.

Rayman60 (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 22:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7 / G11. I requested such; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (@coffman, the speedy was never going to stick—the article makes too much of a claim of significance for its subject). There is, however, an absolute dearth of reliable coverage in either news outlets or literature. Passing mentions, press releases, directory-style entries, and generally unreliable sources such as tabloids and blogs, all insufficient to qualify as either in-depth or persistent coverage from the independent, secondary reliable sources that are necessary to pass the most basic requirements of WP:ANYBIO. ——SerialNumber54129 09:06, 14 November 2018 (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.

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 keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Cerutti

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

Delete It appears most of the "notability" is related to a company Altran. Note: Notability isn't inherited. The references also mostly revolve around Altran news. It doesn't appear that Cerutti is notable in his own right. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The french article proves you wrong. It sports 31 sources, several of which are reliable and centered on him (e.g. [12], [13]). Regards, Comte0 (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of the sources in the French article are also in the English article, and some are English-language sources like the Financial Times and Bloomberg. They profile him before his time at Altran, as the article makes clear. He clearly meets WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not independently notable of Altran; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions and / or about the company. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: notability isn't inherited. All the cited sources and all of the ones I find when searching firmly put Altran as the main topic and Cerutti as a side-note. SITH (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Essentially per RebeccaGreen. The article is already overflowing with sources. The claims that the sources are about the company and not about the guy are surreally hard to comprehend. In particular see Le Figaro, which predates his move to Altran by 6 whole years and also the Financial Times source, which I can't link in to via database, but has extensive coverage also predating Altran. The citation of NOTINHERITED is a joke. It's completely inapplicable. Sheesh. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@192.160.216.52: no it really isn't a joke. Nobody can claim notability is inherited from their company. Mark Zuckerberg wouldn't be a page in its own right if the subject of Zuckerberg himself hadn't garnered significant attention e.g. 1 2 3 4. SITH (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a joke in the sense that there is literally nothing in that essay which applies here. That essay is about arguments not to make in deletion discussions and literally no one is making the argument that Altran is notable so dude is notable. You and everyone else who wants to delete this are opposing an argument that no one is making by citing an essay that warns participants not to make the argument. But no one is making it. And don't forget that even if we were making it, which we're not, that's just an essay that you're citing. WP:GNG is policy and this guy meets that standard. Hence, as I said, a joke. Oh, and thanks for your condescending example about Zuckerberg. Did you even know that Jesus Christ himself wouldn't be notable as the son of God if he hadn't garnered significant attention in his own right? Chew on that for a while, and then consider withdrawing your ill-founded !vote.192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@192.160.216.52: I didn't mean to be condescending with my example. I was actually trying to be helpful and you should assume that in future. A friendly tip though, try to be less condescending yourself like you've done here and here. People can disagree on things without you having to "sheesh" all over the place. SITH (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Going from condescension to judgmental wikistalking is a huge improvement! Sheesh! 192.160.216.52 (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is sustained by many references, particularly on the French-language page FOARP (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2018 (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.

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. Tone 21:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Hubbard (entrepreneur)

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

Declined speedy. I don't think this individual passes wp:GNG; the article is heavily referenced (something that to me smacks of desparation0; however most of these are actually about his alcohol business. There is nothing of any substance about the man. TheLongTone (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't disagree more. He's been interviewed by a bunch of mainstream news outlets, including CNN and the Washington Post, among others. We're talking major feature stories about the business, some of which are included in the "References" section. If more need to be included, then fine, but I'm not sure why feature stories don't qualify as "passing the test." Feature stories don't come around often! Plus, he's a senior executive at a multimillion-dollar nonprofit organization, whereby he's frequently quoted by news outlets too. The page should stay -- what's the harm in keeping it? There are plenty of other less notable people who have Wikipedia pages. That's indisputable. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Doctorstrange617 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 20:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one of the many articles on non-notable businesspeople Wikipedia is plagued with.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:ANYBIO; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2018 (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.

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yakir Gabay

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

This is basically a promotional company profile for this guy's various real estate deals. I see nary a source that deals with him as a person, instead lots of share price bulletins and portfolio blurbs. He is not a sufficiently covered subject. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Am I in the right place? can we discuss the nomination to deletion of this article here?

I would like to state that its not promotional, i have put some effort to put this text together and honestly it not always easy to write over certain subjects and keep it neutral. So, I took your comments and went over the article, deleted some sentences, numbers and tried to stick to the facts. There is not much information on this person, I would be very happy if you can go over it and reconsider, I will edit even more in the next 1-2 days. Thanks,Hilit.schenkel (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hilit.schenkel, if "there is not much information on this person" then that argues against having an article on them. There needs to exist a critical mass of coverage of a subject before an article can be written; if that coverage doesn't exist, then no amount of additional decorations will make it suitable. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote before, I have added more references ( third party ones) since your comment and I have deleted some of the text. Writing that there is not much information on this person, was related to his personal life, not his career. His Career and business strategy has solid coverage and sources on the net and its appears in the article.Hilit.schenkel (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rather sizeable (personal net worth of 2 billion dollars or there abouts) investor / manager. Coverage in RSes over a decade. e.g. - [14][15][16][17][18][19]. Icewhiz (talk) 12:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEY Keep per sources added to article by User:Hilit.schenkel plus those listed by User:Icewhiz. Real estate mogul with notability validated by coverage of major real estate projects. For example, Haaretz: Big In Berlin: "Yakir Gabay was the first Israeli to identify the potential of Berlin's property markets. By age 40 he'd already run Bank Leumi's underwriting company Leumi & Co., Freddi Robinson's real estate company Resido, and the Gmul investment company. In 2004 he decided to make his own mark, in Europe. Grand City Hotels & Resorts, which he founded, today owns and runs more than 70 hotels and has become the second biggest chain in Germany. It also owns residential and commercial property there and employs more than 100 at its Berlin headquarters. Gabay also runs hotels owned by his good buddy Teddy Saguy, who made headlines last week for an investment in Eliezer Fishman's company MirLand." E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Per above comments. The sourcing now in the article establishes GNG beyond any doubt. The nom obviously only looked at the sources in the article at the time of nomination when a trivial search in GNews would have revealed the many, many RS about this guy. Yet another failure of WP:BEFORE. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2018 (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.

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. Note to User:Aoziwe, it's not useful in a deletion discussion to assert that sources exist, but not cite any of them. Given that you didn't provide any specific sources, I was forced to discount your argument. If you think you can find sources (and are willing to commit to doing the work), let me know and I'll restore this to draft space for you to work on. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will Fowles

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

Non-notable multiple-time failed political candidate. Very surprised the article has lasted as long as it has. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but not (only) as a (as yet unsuccessful) politician. I was surprised about how much independent general referencing about the subject there is. This person has a finger in many pies (multiple different events) and gets more than just mentions for them. There is sufficient WP:NEXIST to satisfy WP:GNG, even if likely to fail any specific NSUBJECT. There is readily available material to add to the article. Aoziwe (talk) 12:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dom from Paris (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but open to convincing. I've thought about nominating this before, but that Age article - which is definitely in-depth - always gave me pause. But then I was surprised by how little else there was in the way of serious coverage, so I'm inclined to think this is a straightforward case after all. The MCC business provoked a bit of coverage but there's really not much else that I saw. I would like to see the sources @Aoziwe: mentioned above - I didn't find much that was useful, but perhaps I wasn't looking in the right places. Frickeg (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect from what you have written that we are looking at the same material. Yes there are not many sources which by themselves standalone as indepth material in their own right, but I felt the lesser material when accumulated was sufficient to keep the article and indeed add to it in some areas. There is certainly a lot more material than many other articles rely on. Aoziwe (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO / WP:NPOL; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2018 (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.

Businesspeople Proposed deletion

for occasional archiving

Jonathan Ball (via WP:PROD on 19 December 2007)
Andy Allen (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)
David Donaldson and the Faith Based Initiative (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)
Michael Davis (magazine publisher) (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)
Tony Matthew (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)
Basil Demeroutis (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007) Deleted
Chris P. Tomaras (via WP:PROD on 24 November 2007) G12 speedy (copyvio)

[1] "J. Walter Thompson Has Launched MiNY, An All-Inclusive Marketing Firm, To Enhance The Agency's Capabilities - J. Walter Thompson New York". www.jwt.com. Retrieved 2018-11-28.

[2] "Uno de los fundadores de *S,C,P,F... dirigirá una boutique creativa de JWT en Nueva York". Dircomfidencial (in European Spanish). 2018-10-15. Retrieved 2018-11-28.

[3] ttps://www.adweek.com/contributor/molly-dewolf-swenson/

[4] ttps://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/showing-up-technology-vs-presence-in-the-age-of-protest_us_58866e6de4b0111ea60b9918

[5] ttps://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/live-nation-maverick-taps-ryot-192639461.html/

[6] ttp://emmyonline.com/download/news_38th_nominations_Final.pdf

[7] ttps://www.instagram.com/p/Bc5ubW8BOlB/

[8] ttps://daytimeemmys.dmds.com/Content/documents/GeneralRulesandProcedures.pdf

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]