Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Fabian

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. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Fabian[edit]

[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)

Still unsourced after 14 years. Very little on Google beyond routine coverage. Warrants deletion unless someone has something to add. Dorama285 (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dorama285 (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dorama285 (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Dorama285 (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A Google search turned up nothing but PR Newswire and Business Wire press releases. The only other coverage were minor mentions. With no significant third-party coverage and notability not shown, this fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - financial and investment advisers are run of the mill. There's nothing from what I can see that shows he passes WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable financial journalist. When we source an article to the subjects own publications that is redflag status. This article also seems overly promotional and almost trying to use Wikipedia as an add platform.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only sourcing I could find was basic PR churnalism. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2020 (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.