Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Businesspeople: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 10: Line 10:
==Businesspeople==
==Businesspeople==
<!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
<!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trishneet Arora (3rd nomination)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Cornforth}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Cornforth}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Browder}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Browder}}

Revision as of 01:20, 9 April 2021

Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Businesspeople.
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.

See also: Businesses 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 keep. Consensus here is to keep. Concerns with promotional tone should be addressed by editing/talk page discussion. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trishneet Arora

AfDs for this article:
Trishneet Arora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most links are dead and the last AfD wasn’t properly addressed, the awards and funding related sections clearly depict Promotional work, the subject is a forbes 30 u 30 holder but that doesn’t make him notable as these awards are very manipulative. Posting it up here for a discussion. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 01:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 01:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 01:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 01:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are multiple WP:RS news articles over a period of 2 years which easily makes the subject notable. This might require cleanup. But AFD is not a venue for cleanup. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 03:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article lists 20 sources. All live, or available as archives ("Most links are dead", c'mon). The nominator has not addressed any of these and is making specious and weak arguments. What source, specifically, is a problem? Why? The coverage is real and significant in many reliable sources. Previous AfDs have been riven with socks and canvassing on both sides, including the nominator of the last one who got blocked during the AfD. The noms claim of "manipulative" is unsupported. -- GreenC 03:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has reliable reference from global magazines, TV channels includes BBC and Fortune Magazine there were many recent articles on this person which were not listed on Wiki, I added them. He's popular entrepreneur globally and movie maker Sunil Bohra has already announced movie on his life. State of New Mexico has announced 25th August 2017 as "Trishneet Arora Day", a day on his name. I request to remove the deletion nomination. Techloveralwys (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techloveralwys (talk • contribs) 00:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough and WP:RS links are working. There are other awards also apart from Forbes.Sonofstar (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2021 (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. ✗plicit 03:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Cornforth

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

After noticing it had been flagged for notability concerns, I did a WP:BEFORE search which revealed the subject of the article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them & do not satisfy any criterion from WP:NPOL & as a businessman he doesn’t satisfy WP:ANYBIO. Perhaps this is WP:TOOSOON. Celestina007 (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has existed for less than a day, but fine. Per WP:NPOL, "The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office. As the chair of a major party at the state-wide level, this individual meets WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 00:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete he's never actually held office so the keep argument's flawed there, fails WP:GNG, WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer T·C 00:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NPOL and per WP:POLOUTCOMES: Leaders of major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) parties are usually deleted unless notability can be demonstrated for other reasons. An example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Nehring (2nd nomination), which resulted in the deletion of a California GOP Chair. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete State political party chairs are not default notable. We have deleted articles on people who lead political parties in a state with over 25 times the population of Idaho. As I have said elsewhere, some people who hold this postion are notable, but default notability is limited to elected officials and holders of appointed government positions, not political party functionaries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NPOL Devokewater 21:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He needs to hold office in Government and not in party for NPOL or be very popular locally - which he seems not to be. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2021 (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 merge to DoNotPay. North America1000 21:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Browder

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

The article primarily covers the accomplishments and development of DoNotPay. The subject isn't notable as a standalone article for inclusion in Wikipedia. The bulk of the article covers the product, not the person. Delete and merge with DoNotPay. Ew3234 (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ew3234 (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with DoNotPay: Nom has it correct. Unless rewritten to be about Browder this cannot stand. Browder cannot inherit notability from his app Fiddle Faddle 16:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:55, 16 April 2021 (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 FastSpring. While there are many sources, none of them constitute significant coverage, so there is consensus that he should not have an individual article. There is no consensus on whether the article should redirect to FastSpring or be deleted, so I will default to making the redirect and anyone can take it to RfD if desired. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Foodman

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

Not a notable Entrepreneur. No in-depth sources present. Fails WP:GNG as per lacking WP:RS Citterz (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Citterz (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC) struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
#1 ZNet Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Acquisition announcement that does not mention Foodman at all.
#2 TechCrunch Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN An article about SaaSy that does not mention Foodman at all.
#3 Atlanta Inno Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN An article about female startup founders that mentions Foodman's name once in a list of other founders of Jonny On It.
#4 Yahoo News Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Wrong URL. An article about Vizmato that in one paragraph, says Foodman is the President of Global Delight and founder of FastSpring, lives in Atlanta and has been involved in the tech industry for many years.
#5 CNET Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN An article about Digital River that does not mention Foodman at all.
#6 TidBits Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Acquisition announcement that does not mention Foodman at all.
#7 Games Industry Biz Red XN Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Red XN An article about a business partnership that includes one quote from Foodman about the partnership.
#8 The Daily Record Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN An article about an acquisition of a company that Foodman is the founder of. Says that they negotiated with Foodman for some time and that he is "an excellent ally".
#9 TechCrunch Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN An article about investment in FastSpring that mentions Foodman's name once in a list of other board members.
#10 Fortune Red XN Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Red XN An article about FastSpring and Digital River, includes quotes from Foodman about FastSpring.
#11 Entrepreneur Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN An article about three startup entrepreneurs that mentions Foodman's name once in a list of other founders of FastSpring.
#12 The Stevie Awards Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Red XN 2015 Stevie Award Winners, includes FastSpring, no mention of Foodman.
#13 Inc. Magazine Red XN Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Dead link. FastSpring on a list of other companies, no expected mention of Foodman.
#14 Deloitte Red XN Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN FastSpring on a list of 500 other companies, no mention of Foodman.
#15 Pacific Coast Business Times Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Dead link. Article about investment in FastSpring.
#16 Business Wire India Red XN Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN An announcement about Global Delight appointing Foodman as its new CEO. Includes some quotes from Foodman and some information on his background.
#17 Geektime Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Dead link. Article about a Vizmato product launch.
#18 Pymnts Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN An acquisition announcement that mentions Foodman's name once in a list of other founders of FastSpring.
#19 Salon Today Red XN Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN An announcement about Rosy Salon Software appointing Foodman as its new president. Includes some quotes from Foodman and some information on his background.
#20 Jounal Pioneer Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN An acquisition announcement that mentions Foodman's name once in a list of other founders of FastSpring.
#21 Digital Trends Red XN Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN A Global delight product launch article. Includes some quotes from Foodman.
#22 Inside UNC Charlotte Red XN Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Red XN A redirect to the Salon Today article.
#23 Google Patents Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN A patent where Foodman is listed as the inventor.
#24 USA Weightlifting Question? Question? Question? Question? Red XN Dead link. Unable to verify per WP:V.
#25 Casual Connect Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN An article by Foodman about GetMyRebate.com.
#26 Software Business Magazine Question? Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN No link. An article by Foodman.
#27 Entrepreneur Red XN Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Red XN An article about creating web companies, includes quotes from Foodman.
#28 Fortune Red XN Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Red XN An article about Digital River, includes a quote from Foodman.
Total qualifying sources 0
There is no significant coverage in multiple reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Techcrunch article you mention is source #9, Fortune #10, Entrepreneur #11, and Daily Record #8. None of them have significant coverage. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Randykitty: Above seems a good example for WP:HOAX. The nom is bad faith. Maybe you can reconsider your vote :) Frigidpolarbear (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the three sources purportedly meeting GNG, I checked the one in Entrepreneur, which is just an in-passing mention of Foodman and contributes nothing to notability. I didn't check the others (Fortune is behind a paywall and the Daily Record website seems to be down), but just the Entrepreneur example already shows that you have no good feeling for what meets GNG and what doesn't. In addition, I sampled some of the references and agree with the nterpretations of {SailingInABathTubabove. --Randykitty (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right upon checking deep Fortune articles fails for GNG. The entrepreneur article seems just a mention. Agree with your assessment. :) Frigidpolarbear (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2021 (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Kumar Khara

Dinesh Kumar Khara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP does not meet WP:NBIO- notability is largely inherited from the bank he works for. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 08:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You mean the bank he manages? State Bank of India, the largest bank in India, and one of the largest in the world? Yes, notability is not inherited, but this is the sort of position where notability can be presumed. It is obvious just from the long list of results on google news that he is notable and passes GNG. There are profiles fter the recommendation to appoint him ([4][5][6]), profiles when he was appointed ([7][8]), profiles after he was appointed on his economic views ([9][10]).--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 09:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per reasoning provided by Eostrix, there are tons of references [11], [12], [13] which all are satisfying WP:SIGCOV. In my opinion, the article should have been expanded rather than being deleted. Chirota (talk)
  • Keep As per all above, passes WP:BASIC. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2021 (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 08:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Hale (born 1998)

William Hale (born 1998) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BEFORE failed to turn up anything not in the article. We have local sources, an interview (not independent), an article by a mental health service he used (not independent). In the category of possibly contributing to notability, we have an appearance in a documentary (not the main/only focus of it, it looks like), and possibly a LadBible article that Hale is the focus of. Overall, WP:GNG is not met. Was approved by a sock at AFC - not sure if their behaviour at AFC was ever in question, but I wouldn't expect a normal AFC reviewer to accept this. (If the close is "delete", remove the listing from William Hale.) — Bilorv (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2021 (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. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tolga Tanriseven

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

Related article was deleted two years ago. Not notable, reads promotional, sources are likely paid coverage. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 11:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 11:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 11:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 11:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All the sources provided in the article only mention the subject as the founder of the GirlsAskGuys - there's no significant coverage on the subject himself, therefore he fails WP:GNG. Less Unless (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2021 (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 Jo Coburn. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 05:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Flanagan (communications)

Mark Flanagan (communications) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing to show WP:GNG. Article reads like a resume and a puff piece. Megtetg34 (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't even think he's important enough for a re-direct, just a communications veteran, along with countless others in the same job. Oaktree b (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jo Coburn: Per WP:INHERIT. Barely found anything about him. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 8 April 2021 (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 Open Source Initiative. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 05:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Fogel

AfDs for this article:
Karl Fogel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another non-notable business person that was originally deleted and made its way back onto Wikipedia. Stub has been active for several years without an ounce of notability or new sources.Megtetg34 (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Open Source Initiative where he is mentioned, as an WP:ATD. I would also fully protect the redirect to stop article creation. Other option would be to delete and salt, but the redirect has some value. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Agree with the re-direct, the things he's done seem more important than himself. The sources here are all about things he's done, not about him. Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2021 (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Fairman

AfDs for this article:
Gabriel Fairman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not really sure what's going on here. When I nominated it for AFD, it took me to an old AFD discussion where the result was delete so I assume it was deleted. Nevertheless, here the article is again with no sources to establish notability. Megtetg34 (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its past content can be found to the right of the page in the first deletion discussion. Have a look. Megtetg34 (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt fails WP:GNG, not notable, and repeatedly recreated. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt Not notable. Salt because the article with the same name has been created many many times. Mohammad (talk) 09:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've declined the G4 speedy deletion because it's different enough from the original version, with more references. No comment on the validity of those references or on notability. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an overly prmotional article on a businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2021 (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) 19:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Guimard

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

No evidence of notability found anywhere. Megtetg34 (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Mccapra (talk) 06:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She's authored a few books, that seem like self-published/do it yourself publications. I can't find anything in French to show notability, she's just a long-term employee in the financial world. Oaktree b (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Thanks for your comment. The article covers her work history portraying her as a business person, which does not meet notability requirements. See WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. While the book is available in certain libraries, I haven't found enough sources to constitute WP:BOOKCRIT, which would be a page independent of her. I'm going to let the nom stand because I still don't think there's enough to merit a page on her own. Megtetg34 (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable businesswomen. Just because you get someone else to publish a book you wrote does not mean you are automatically notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2021 (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Hines

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

No independent verifiable sources to establish notability. Article reads like a job description. Just because he's a communications manager for Bethesda certainly does not warrant inclusion into an encyclopedia. Utterly fails WP:BIO. Megtetg34 (talk) 04:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not meeting any notability guideline. Perhaps they will go far in the future and reach an encyclopedic level of notability, but they are not there yet. BD2412 T 05:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:11, 7 April 2021 (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. MBisanz talk 16:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Danziger

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

almost all of the links in the article are dead. There is 1 article that can count towards WP:GNG and that's source 11. Nothing else found that can establish notability here. Megtetg34 (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updated links, none should be dead anymore. Tennesseerudolphs — Preceding undated comment added 12:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for updating the links. Source 1, 2 and 3 does not mention her, just mentions the organizations. Source 4 is a Crunchbase profile. Source 5 lacks depth. Source 6 is trivial near the bottom of the article. Source 7 is another Crunchbase profile. Source 8 is trivial. Source 9 is a trivial mention of topic's name near bottom of page. Source 10 is from topic's own website. Source 11 is still the best one in my opinion, and can count towards WP:GNG. Source 12 is link to her bio as she is a contributor to Forbes, which would honestly have me take a closer look at 11 and the relationship there. Source 13 and 14, and 16 are trivial again, simply stating her name/company in article. Source 15 is an interview without an editor's name to it at women2.com. I don't think that passes as a verified source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I think if you look at WP:NBUSINESSPERSON, it states: Corporate presidents, chief executive officers and chairpersons of the boards of directors of companies listed in the Fortune 500 (US) or the FTSE 100 Index (UK) are generally kept as notable. Obviously, the topic isn't so I'm going to let the nomination stand because I'm not seeing anything notable enough to warrant inclusion into the encyclopedia, and frankly the article reads like a resume/self promotion. Megtetg34 (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:44, 15 April 2021 (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. ✗plicit 13:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrahman Musa Bashar

Abdulrahman Musa Bashar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP of a businessperson who does not meet WP:NBIO- notability is largely inherited from the company (Rahamaniyya Global Resources). MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2021 (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. ✗plicit 07:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danilo Antúnez Mejía

Danilo Antúnez Mejía (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable businessman in charge of non-notable organizations. No legitimate sources found to suggest the contrary. Megtetg34 (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2021 (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. Hog Farm Talk 16:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Bulthaup

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

Non-notable "American engineer and inventor". His claim to fame is that he received inventor of the week at MIT in 2007. Sources 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 are unavailable. Source 2, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, makes no mention of him whatsoever. Source 7 is his bio for a company he works at. Source 11 is a press release where he makes 1 comment. Source 12 and 16 is a trivial mention. Article reads like a resume and puff piece. No sources found to suggest otherwise. Megtetg34 (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:52, 6 April 2021 (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) 04:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole M. Christie

Nicole M. Christie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a single source found anywhere to establish notability, including the sole source in the article. This is a resume piece and nothing more. Megtetg34 (talk) 01:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a place to post resumes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no way to save this article, lacks WP:BASIC. Chirota (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nicole is THE spokesperson for H&M and is in almost every article about H&M recently, but there aren't articles about her specifically. My inclination is a delete based on this, but I wanted to check with more experienced voters. Are there any guidelines specifically for household names that might not have a ton of independent coverage? Redoryxx (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2021 (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 Fresnillo plc. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Octavio Alvídrez

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

Topic is president and CEO of... a metropolitan city in Mexico, per line 1 of the article. It's obviously a typo as he looks to be the CEO of Fresnillo PLC, but who can say for certain since there's hardly any independent verifiable sources covering the subject making him notable enough for encyclopedic inclusion. Megtetg34 (talk) 02:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:50, 6 April 2021 (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) 04:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Chiongbian

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

A non-notable business person and political candidate. 2 of the 3 links in the article are dead. The only other source is a blog post claiming that he ran against Manny Pacquiao (the boxer) in 2010 for Congress, and lost. I did not see his name mentioned on Manny Pacquiao's Wikipedia article and have not found any verifiable information that that claim is even true. Regardless, there doesn't seem to be any sources to constitute inclusion to Wikipedia. Megtetg34 (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:46, 6 April 2021 (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 07:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Ali Bin Ali

Hassan Ali Bin Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no reliable sources cited on the page. A google search shows that there has been some coverage of him but it's by unreliable propaganda outlets like Al-Arabiya.[18] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Subject of the article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable businessperson lacking reliably sourced coverage. We need to be very vigilant to stop Wikipedia from turning into LinkedIn.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This doesn't pass our notability guideline and it slipped through since 2013. TheChronium (talk) 06:26, 12 April 2021 (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 07:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haruna Sentongo

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

Possible covert upe G11 eligible borderline article on a non notable entrepreneur & philanthropist. Having observed the ref bombing, I assumed a WP:BEFORE would turn up cogent sources but nothing of value could be observed. I saw links to sponsored posts, self published sources, and user generated sources. Furthermore wealth or opulence doesn’t translate to notability. In all, they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much @ Celestina007Thank you very much for this obersvation, let me comprehensively this Article, it will only take me a couple of hours, to sort this mess, then come back. Thank you very much. Ibitukirire (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. I have made edits on the Article, Eliminating and replacing most links and I'm now requesting for Expert review and modification. Thank you Ibitukirire (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:
      • Articles on living businesspeople should be held to a high standard of notability. This article does not pass that bar.
      • A draft was already in draft space, and then this article was created by the same editor. Creating a page in both draft space and article space is often but not always a sign of gaming the system.
      • Does not meet general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is just blatant spam about a non-notable African businessman, and looks like UPE to me. Given the gaming concerns also present (and Robert has started an SPI related to this spamming), this is not something that can be kept IMO. JavaHurricane 06:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable Ugandan businessperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: In Regards to Robert McClenon's observations, I did not create any drafts for Sentongo, the draft was created by a different user, the only page I created was for deceased Nuhu Muzaata Batte which was tagged for copyright infringement and deleted by admin Liz. It was later undeleted, dratified at Draft:Nuhu Muzaata Batte and Submitted for Review by the same admin, and I'm Still working on it with others' inputs. another draft I made is Reason As the World Masterpiece which I submitted: requested other expert editors for more professional edits and is currently pending review, the rest are just edits on the Existing Articles/pages as I work on more research for other articles offline. As of now, The only Existing page that I created is Haruna Sentongowhich individual I do not personally know or Ever met as of now. After finding the draft, I tried putting the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haruna_Sentongo direct in the search tab which gave me the provision to directly create the page, and I first made inquiries at the TeaHouse where I was advised that I can place my own drafts in the main space, but New Pages patrol folks are likely to treat it more harshly than an article that has gone through the WP:AfC process. Hence Making the page based on that background. Ibitukirire (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, I believe it would not be right, to call me a Spammer here, for instance the Shiek Nuhu Muzaata Batte who is already a dead person, someone was saying undisclosed paid editing, really? a dead man when I am not even a moslem??. I only made that after making some edits on the recently deceased Archbishop Cyprian Kizito Lwanga and Checked for Buzaata only to find no articles hence making that. kindly check my history since joining Wikipedia please. I just honestly believe that based on Reality without doubt, this gentleman is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Given his different search engines notability. Ibitukirire (talk) 04:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prayer
Comrades, I pray that given the number of Articles of living individuals on Wikipedia with a far less notability than this gentleman, not only in Uganda, I pray that you humbly take an appropriate action. Where necessary I can improve the article replacing and eliminating the non independent links.
  • Note:: Based on the recent history, I have decided to rescue myself from making any additional editing on my own drafts, articles pending census here in order to avoid any suspicion on my account, but ready to do as you may advise.
Independent sources in Uganda include Daily Monitor,([[19]]) New Vision (newspaper), ([[20]]) [[ The Observer (Uganda) News Paper, Nile Post NBS Television (Uganda), Newslexpoint among others.
I am not here to complain or object but rather, to learn and get more professional guidance towards becoming a better Wikipedia Editor, hence I request that you should not take me as otherwise. Thank you very much. Ibitukirire (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: this user's "improvements" have little improved the article. Still no sign of notability exists. Additionally the editor may need blocking for UPE spam. JavaHurricane 06:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have any further inputs and comments in regards to that gentleman, Honestly, I finally give up on that Article.Ibitukirire (talk) 06:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Likely covert UPE for yet anther non notable WP:ROTM businessman and wannabe Wikipedia article. Agree with Robert about likely gaming the system and concur with the nominator on their rationale. WP:ADMASQ. Fails WP:GNG Fiddle Faddle 07:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Request for Analyzing refferences Hello Fiddle Faddle I gave up on this article, but for learning purposes, I hereby humbly request that you please help me perform an analysis for some of the references i used in this article, the report will guide me when working on other articles (Eliminating some unreliable sources) when . Thank you Very Much. Ibitukirire (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ibitukirire I have replied on your talk page Fiddle Faddle 12:39, 9 April 2021 (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. Randykitty (talk) 11:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Devin Caherly

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

Topic fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO, and reads like promotional content in my opinion. No verifiable articles online to substantiate that he is a known business person, which is the first line of the article. Also, I don't consider having a TikTok account with a large following enough to satisfy the requirement for inclusion in an encyclopedia, especially in a day and age where social media followers can be purchased. Topic appears to be promotional content and nothing more. Megtetg34 (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no claim of notability, fails WP:GNG. Riteboke (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)#[reply]
  • Keep Pass WP:GNG with coverage in reliable sources such as the ones here [[21]] [[22]] Northern Escapee (talk) 07:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I find it absurd that the NY Times gave substantial coverage to him, but so they did, and I think we must accept their judgment,. DGG ( talk ) 09:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. One article in the NYT isn't enough to pass WP:GNG. Neither is 2. I'm not seeing in-depth significant coverage in multiple RS and biographical articles needs at least WP:3REFS as bare minimum. Megtetg34 (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ENT (large fan base) and WP:SIGCOV. Caherly is a social media personality. There are at least 3 separate instances of his posts generating coverage in reliable sources: POV meme [23], TikTok duets [24][25], and social media trends [26]. Nomination reads like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. TJMSmith (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My nom is baked in WP policy, and nothing else. I see that you created the article, and have been editing it since the nom. Perhaps you have a connection to topic, or your opposition is more a case of WP:ILIKEIT? Megtetg34 (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For clarification: Source 1 is a local, neighborhood publication. Doesn't pass WP:NEWSORG. Source 2 talks about one of his posts, not him, and only mentions his username. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Sources 3 and 4, talk about his relationship with another social media star, Tatayanna Mitchell, who's Wikipedia page has also since been deleted. Source 5 is about one of his social media posts, not WP:SIGCOV of the topic himself. The argument that the topic meets WP:ENT based on criterion #2 large fan base is referenced in WP:YOUTUBE: A frequent argument put forward for keeping the article is that a subject is notable because of their number of subscribers or the number of times their videos have been viewed. There are other trivial or passing mentions of his name, and/or TikTok name on other, unverified sources, however they lack depth, and the only other sources I found that offered deep coverage on him was on hiseye.org, which is the publication of a high school in which he went to, vizaca.com, a submit your own interview/content website, and celebpie.com, a social media directory. So, until WP policy is amended to allow social media personalities in with big follower counts, there should still be WP:SIGCOV in multiple RS to warrant encyclopedic inclusion and I have found nothing additional to meet GNG criterion for this topic. Hence, the nomination. Megtetg34 (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2021 (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) 13:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Butler (entrepreneur)

Jonathan Butler (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources 2, 3, 4, 8 and 9 come from websites that the topic owns and operates. I saw no mention of the topic in source 5 and only a trivial mention/comment in sources 6, 7 and 10. The sources reference his company mostly, and not him. The best article of the bunch is 11, and obviously 1 article about the topic is not nearly enough to constitute WP:BIO. Topic fails notability guidelines and the article can be seen as promotional material only.  Megtetg34 (talk) 04:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are not enough sources that are independent and reliable providing significant coverage to justify having an article on Butler.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Someone (an IP address editor) has since added 10 additional sources since the AFD of this article, and re-worked the sources so my initial AFD summary looks incorrect. Regarding the additional 10 sources, the summary now is:
    • Source 3 - Trivial mention about flea markets in NY neighborhoods, with minor comments from topic.
    • Source 7 - article is about a building development the topic and others were involved in, not about the topic itself.
    • Source 12 - article mentions topic, his partner and other foodie business owners. No depth.
    • Source 13 - links to Chelsea Flea, no article mentioning the topic.
    • Source 14 - trivial mention of topic in paragraph 2, simply naming him as co-founder.
    • Source 15 - not a single mention of the topic.
    • Source 16 - trivial mention of topic 3 quarters down the page, simply naming him as co-founder.
    • Source 17 - not a single mention of the topic.
    • Source 18 - 20 second video speech where topic suggests people like to take pictures of their food whilst waving it around in front of the Empire State Building.
    • Source 20 - article covers the topic, but is from the college he graduated from which makes it a dependent source, not an independent source that would count towards WP:GNG.
    • Source 21 - article is a dead link, doesn't exist.

The topic has the majority of the coverage of his business enthralled in posts by the New York Times. If they are thought to be inlcuded by the article editors in an attempt to establish WP:GNG, please see WP:MULTSOURCES: The appearance of different articles in the same newspaper is still one source (one publisher). No additional sources constituting depth of coverage independent sources have been found. Topic continues to fail requirements to meet WP:GNG. Megtetg34 (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)  [reply]

  • Delete per nom and the findings above. Riteboke (talk) 07:19, 14 April 2021 (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) 23:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Emmer

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

Only 1 source cited in the article and only 2 more articles found online... actually they were the same article published on 2 different websites. Topic does not constitute WP:BIO or adhere to policy guidelines as far as I can see. It looks like he was just a "good guy". Megtetg34 (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable mid level manager for the Disney organization. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:07, 4 April 2021 (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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Romer Carlson

Rachel Romer Carlson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:COATRACK article on a subject who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Generally, an individual is notable when they satisfy our notability threshold or peculiar SNG & not by their proximity to seemingly notable entities/persons. Notability isn’t a birthright or WP:NOTINHERITED. A before search showed me this, which is overtly unreliable, this, which is overtly unreliable also & hits in numerous sponsored posts. In summary, there isn’t a single source that I can observe which discusses her with in-depth significant coverage. Celestina007 (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how much this is related to New Hampshire or Florida. Is there a discussion for American businesswomen? --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 05:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rachel Romer Carlson is the founder and CEO of a female-led company that is valued at $1 billion or more. How many women have this accomplishment? CollegeMeltdown (talk) 03:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That´s the company. You are writing an article about a person, a biography. What is your biographical source material? And why does this article contain only 3 sentences that are actually about its subject, the person? Where is anything else about the person going to come from? Uncle G (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's three sentences out of eight sentences total. She's 33 years old and is the founder and leader of a billion dollar corporation. How many people have biographies at 33 years of age, other than professional athletes and entertainers? Should I include information about her twin daughters or her marriage ceremonies which were officiated by David Brooks (commentator)?[1]--CollegeMeltdown (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She is a co-founder, & not founder that isn’t my point anyway, she fails to satisfy any of our notability criteria for inclusion, you can of course prove me wrong my providing us with RS that proves the contrary. Your point about her being 33 & cofounding an organization is irrelevant. Furthermore the article mainly discusses the organization & not subject of the article per se. In your opinion what notability criteria does she meet? Clearly you shouldn’t be creating articles directly to mainspace. Perhaps use the AFC method of submission instead. Celestina007 (talk) 05:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. She is the co-founder and CEO and her name is synonymous with Guild Education. Maybe you can help me get through the paywall?[2] CollegeMeltdown (talk) 05:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Celestina007 Please remember to make an attempt at civility. Suggesting AFC is fine, suggesting that an editor shouldn't be creating articles is...not very civil or constructive. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A simple Google search returns multiple RS, for example a cover article in Forbes (and yes, by a staff writer, not a blogger, so RS) and an article from Stanford Graduate School of Business (although it is something of a "look at what our alumni are doing" article). Her wedding appears to have been covered by the New York Times, for what it is worth. Additionally, as the cofounder and CEO of a company with a billion dollar market cap, one would expect to find further RS because simply having that position tends to generate coverage. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — @Hyperion35, you do realize that in-depth significant coverage in multiple RS is required by GNG for GNG to be met? The forbes source isn’t bad, but one source isn’t sufficient for GNG to be met. A biographical article needs at least WP:3REFS so by all means, please do provide to this AFD, any of the three(just three) of the multiple RS you claim to have discovered, if you can’t, then I’m afraid your keep !vote is invalid. The article in itself as well as a host of other sources I observed make reference to the organization and not the subject herself hence WP:SIGCOV isn’t met. The whole article is a coatrack. Celestina007 (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First off, that "three sources" "rule" is an essay, it is NOT Wikipedia policy. Second, you do NOT get to say that my keep vote is "invalid", that is once again uncivil. The Forbes article in and of itself goes a long way towards establishing notability. The MoneyInc article itself may not be from a RS, but it does contain some interesting biographical information that could probably be found in better sources. A link to a Fortune article was placed, but it is nehind a paywall so I cannot assess it, I merely note that another editor claims that it contains significant coverage (remember, AGF).
There is another article and interview at InfoQ although I am not familiar with that source. However, that article notes that she was the keynote speaker at a conference called Develop Denver 2019, the Develop Denver website confirms that it is a real thing, but I cannot immediately find the notes of her actual keynote speech on that website.
In searching for that speech, I instead came across This article in the Colorado Sun about the subject. The article is also about the company she founded, yes, but it is primarily about Carlson and her role, a significant number of paragraphs actually start with her name, for example. This strikes me as a highly valid reliable source with significan coverage. Hyperion35 (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Lee, Allen. "20 Things You Didn't Know About Rachel Carlson". moneyinc.com. Money Inc. Retrieved 4 April 2021.
  2. ^ MURRAY, ALAN; MEYER, DAVID. "Can tech solve the re-skilling challenge?". fortune.com. Fortune. Retrieved 4 April 2021.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while there is valid points from Hyperion35, I'm going to air on the side of delete here because it does appear that the article and her notability stems more from the company than independent notability. In my view, she's borderline, and I'm of the belief that encyclopedic topics either pass notability or they don't. I think WP:TOOSOON is applicable here. If anyone finds anything additional I'd be willing to change my vote, but I didn't just find enough online to merit keep. Megtetg34 (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage that I am finding, such as that Colorado Sun article, tends to focus more on Carlson's role in founding the company than the company itself. In many of these cases, it can be hard to separate the two. There is certainky far more coverage of Apple than of Steve Jobs. And way more coverage of Franz Ferdinand than Gavrilo Princip. And yet both of those individuals have significant independent notability. Hyperion35 (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not in disagreement with you that she has a bright future, and that a $1 billion dollar company valuation is impressive. Personally, I think it's impressive. However, as it pertains to this particular discussion, whether or not I, or anyone else, thinks that what someone is doing is impressive doesn't necessitate inclusion into the encyclopedia. Opinions aside, the facts are: 1) There isn't enough independent, reliable sources about her to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The Colorado Sun article that you mentioned is a local newspaper, not a mainstream newspaper. Not gonna work. See WP:SOURCES. The Stanford blog post is where she went to school. Can neutrality apply there? I don't think it can. The institution has a vested interest in presenting to the public that they have successful alumni. See WP:ORGIND: any material written or published, including websites, by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it, directly or indirectly are considered dependent sources. Dependent sources don't count towards independent sources. 2) Just because Steve Jobs or other business people have an article, doesn't mean that all founders of highly valued companies, or any companies at all for that matter, should get an article. See WP:WAX and WP:OSE. 3) The debate that you and Celestina007 are having pertaining to WP:3REFS is the bare minimum for encyclopedic inclusion. Even IF the topic had 3 independent sources, it doesn't mean that a bell tolls, and the article is automatically accepted into Wikipedia, no questions asked. Other factors come into play. The basis of your argument is that there is "just enough", and I don't even think there's that. My vote is firmly planted on delete. Megtetg34 (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Three references is, once again, not Wikipedia policy or a guideline. It is an essay by one user. Please see WP:NEXIST. The standard is the existence or even likely existence of sources. I believe that you have also misunderstood what I meant about Jobs, I meant that most of the articles about him will also be about his company. I do believe that it is possible to agree to disagree, but I do find misunderstandings disheartening. Hyperion35 (talk) 02:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what is the objection to the Colorado Sun? It does not appear to be a local newspaper, amd I am confused about the statement that it is not a mainstream news source. Perhaps you can add citations on that to our Wikipedia page about the Sun? Hyperion35 (talk) 02:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a mainstream newspaper like the Wall Street Journal for example. I have given my vote and reasons above per Wikipedia policy and for no other reason. However, it's clear that it's very, very important to you that she stays. Let's let the rest of the community have their vote and respect them, whatever they may be. Megtetg34 (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the worst nomination I have seen today. Subject meets WP:GNG. There is an in-depth Forbes article about her from a Staff Writer, which unlike contributing writers, is an acceptable format. There are also CNBC and New York times articles. Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete subject does not meet any reading of GNG that emphasizes the coverage has to be significantly about the person in question. This is not the 1990s, $1 billion is just not what it used to be, and a company valued over $1 billion does not automatically make its head notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I have revised the article and added sources, including a reference to a regional EY award in 2020, and created this source assessment table, which does not include the NYT opinion article co-authored by Carlson nor the CNBC source about Guild:
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
2019, Class Act: This 31-Year-Old’s Company Rocketed To A $1 Billion Valuation Helping Workers Get Degrees, Forbes (Staff) Yes Yes Yes The article focuses on Carlson, and includes biographical information, e.g. a history of Guild focused on her role, information about her family, her childhood, some of her past career, her family's history in the education industry, and some of her education background. ✔ Yes
2016, When Education Innovation Is the Family Business: a Dinner With the Romers The Chronicle of Higher Education Yes Yes value not understood The article is more focused on the Romer family, but Carlson is discussed in the article, including some of her education background and past career before Guild, and her personal goal for Guild. ? Unknown
2018, Guild Education’s twist on college is working for cashiers, sales clerks and others who abandoned the idea of a college degree, Colorado Sun Yes Yes Yes This article is focused on Carlson, and includes biographical information, including her family (children), the creation of Guild, discussion of managing Guild in the context of being an expectant parent, her family, her childhood, her education background, and some of her career history. While there also is a substantial discussion of Guild, per WP:GNG, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. ✔ Yes
2021, Managing Future Growth at an Innovative Workforce Education Startup, Harvard Business School Cold Call Podcast Yes Yes value not understood This source is more focused on Guild, but includes some background on Carlson, because the podcast host asks, "Tell us about Rachel. Rachel Carlson is the... She's the protagonist in the case. She is the founder of the firm. She's an interesting person. Tell us a little bit about her background," and there is a brief discussion of her family, some of her education, some of her prior career, and the creation of Guild. ? Unknown
2020, #StoptheSpread: Hundreds of business leaders and investors signed a commitment to help stop the spread of the coronavirus pandemic., Business Insider India Yes Yes value not understood This article is not focused on Carlson, even though her picture is at the top, but it takes notice of the open letter she co-authored that advocates for business leaders to take action in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. ? Unknown
2020, Steph Curry, 400 CEOs And Investors Sign Open Letter Pledging To Take Bold Action In Combatting Coronavirus Spread Forbes Staff Yes Yes value not understood This article is not focused on Carlson, even though her picture is at the top, but it takes notice of the open letter she co-authored that advocates for business leaders to take action in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. ? Unknown
2014, Rachel Romer and David Carlson, New York Times ? ? value not understood There is no byline in this wedding announcement, but some information is provided about her family, her education and her past career. ? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
My !vote is based on the results of my research and the sources assessed above, but there is also WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME, which states, Biographical material on heads and key figures of smaller companies which are themselves the subject of Wikipedia articles are sometimes merged into those articles and the biographies redirected to the company, and several of the more robust sources are included in the Guild Education article, and relevant information could potentially be added to the History and/or Leadership section of that article. Beccaynr (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC) I have updated my !vote to delete after further consideration of the sources as well as the recent comment by Celestina007. Beccaynr (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

::::Comment I am not sure if it is an error, or if there were two separate Forbes stories, but the Forbes story you have linked to is not the Forbes story that I mentioned earlier. This Forbes article appears to be a full length feature, possibly a cover story, specifically about Rachel Romer Carlson. I do not know whether it affects your vote, but I believe that it should be included in a list of sources. It os clearly non-trivial significant coverage of the subject herself. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC) I should not post comments while watching baseball. I apologize, this article was right at the top of the list. Mea culpa. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment — I follow a Rosguillian, philosophy when engaging in AFD's which is, make your point, add perhaps two more points/arguments and then back off & let the community handle the rest. My thought is this is the archetypal example of WP:TOOSOON. She definitely has a bright future ahead of her & would invariably get an article on her retained on mainspace but im afraid now is not that time. Celestina007 (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at least redirect to her company page. Riteboke (talk) 07:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is leaning towards a keep consensus but relisting in an attempt to see if a firmer consensus can be found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are solid !votes to "keep" or to "delete", more discussion might lead to a more satisfying close than "no consensus".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no policy based argument in Wikipedia that if a person is a CEO of a large company, then they must be notable. There is no coverage with a thought. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 17:03, 5 May 2021 (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. The keep arguments are much stronger than delete ones to keep at this time. Consensus was that the subject meets WP:GNG based on foreign sources.

However, improvements to the article are certainly needed. The article will be tagged as needing translation to facilitate that. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fouzi Ayoub Sabri

Fouzi Ayoub Sabri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As far as I can tell, there is no substantive RS coverage of the subject in English-language sources. The company that he leads doesn't even have a Wikipedia page. The page describes him as the first Saudi creator of a car, but I find nothing on that in a Google search. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As mentioned in another AfD, no substantive RS coverage of the subject in English-language sources is completely irrelevant -- notability doesn't care about the language (on the meta-level, someone covered only in Icelandic or Sindhi is unlikely to get an enwiki article simply because enwiki has fewer people interested in such figures, but if they do such an article is unimpeachably notable). Unlike the other AfD, where evidence doesn't yet exist to suggest the non-English coverage is meaningful, this one appears to pass. Vaticidalprophet 21:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article is only sourced to coverage on the subject on his own website. We cannot keep articles with such inadequate coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ Johnpacklambert per WP:BEFORE C.1. "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." the current state of the sources on the article is not a criteria for deletion Jeepday (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The other language article has good sources which appear to meet WP:GNG. Jeepday (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2021 (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 10:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Al Hammad

Mohammad Al Hammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no substantive coverage of the subject in english-language sources. As far as I can tell, the subject is a run-of-the-mill business person who sometimes writes op-eds. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is no substantive coverage of the subject in english-language sources is irrelevant, because Wikipedia does not depend on substantive coverage in English-language sources. (This is not a !vote, and therefore not an assumption on whether or not the subject has substantive coverage in any language.) Vaticidalprophet 21:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The language is purposely hedged so that speakers of other languages can assess whether there are sources in other languages that cover the subject. A lack of coverage in English-speaking sources is one indicator of lack of notability, but is not conclusive. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2021 (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) gidonb (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sheela Maini Søgaard

Sheela Maini Søgaard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough seprate coverage for this CEO fails WP:GNG Sliekid (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sliekid (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. If this were shortened to relevant biographical points it would make sense as a section about the CEO on the Bjarke Ingels Group page. Seems like a better solution than losing all of the work that's been done as it could be split back out at later date, if and when needed. --Dnllnd (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While several of the sources are closely related to the subject, there are sufficient informative secondary sources to testify to notability. Additional secondary sources can easily be found in the Danish press, e.g. [27], [28].--Ipigott (talk) 10:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets general notability guidelines and plenty of other sources can be found.Ramblersen2 (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It appears to that there is adequate coverage in independent, reliable sources to meet GNG. There seem to be at least one more substantial article not already cited:
  • Hun kvittede sit prestigejob og er nu topchef for stjernearkitektens 600 ansatte Efter to år hos konsulentkaempen McKinsey sagde Sheela Maini Søgaard op og dermed farvel til en i manges øjne attraktiv karrierevej. Ambitionerne om at gøre karriere forblev dog intakte. Jyllands-Posten, 17 Oct 2020
Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2021 (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Al-Yahya

Kamal Al-Yahya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As far as I can tell, there is no substantive RS coverage of the subject in English-language sources. The company that he leads doesn't even have a Wikipedia page. The page has had a notability tag since 2014, yet nothing has been added to the page to bolster the case that the subject is notable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2021 (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 10:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher K. Tucker

Christopher K. Tucker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not meet WP:BIO; the links referenced in the article are primarily about In-Q-Tel, the geospatial industry, and the academic institutions the subject is affiliated with rather than being about the subject himself. A variety of Google searches did not uncover significant information about the subject separate from these institutions. The article's claim that the subject was a dark-horse candidate for CIA Director in 2008 appears to be referenced in passing in a single interview with the subject and does not appear to have been widely discussed at the time in news articles about possible candidates for the position. Some of this article's information may merit inclusion in the articles about In-Q-Tel or some of the geospatial or academic institutions referenced. This article has almost no other articles that link to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.16.209 (talk) 03:31, April 3, 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copied from article talk page. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall talk 04:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable businessman lacking significant coverage of him at a level that would show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. He might be notable, but much of the article is cut, pasted, and redacted from here: click on his name or his LinkedIn page. He's not especially well-known and has almost exactly half the followers that I have on Twitter. We're two degrees of separation from each other, FWIW. Bearian (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2021 (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. Hog Farm Talk 16:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B. Prabhakaran

B. Prabhakaran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I analysed the complete sources and found that, all of them are talking about his company rather than this person. Some of them dont even mention him. On doing a WP:Before, I only got this [29] as the one giving any least coverage. Here also the main topic is his company. Thus the sources provided are just a REFBOMBING and the subject have no significant coverage at all and fails GNG. There is also a possibility that this article was created for promotional purpose if we are looking at the style of writing. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 14:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 14:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 14:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 14:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't pass WP:NPOL. Sharath Abhivadyah Talk Page 15:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 10:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the tag says, this article reads like an advertisement and does not demonstrate notability. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:10, 6 April 2021 (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. Missvain (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elohor Aiboni

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

Non-notable. Of the three sources, one only mentions her once as an attendee. The other two mainly report on her appointment, which is not significant coverage. And the main claim to fame seems to be that she is the first female to hold the position of CEO at Shell Nigeria, which in itself is not an inherently notable role. Fails WP:BIO / WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepDelete Considering that it is rare for women to occupy prominent positions in Nigeria (see Women in Nigeria), being appointed to head the company is important and has been covered by multiple sources. An aide of the President is reported to have confirmed it. I think WP:CONTEXTUALISATION is important for the keep. Vikram Vincent 08:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, every one of the couple of hundred male midwives in the UK deserve an article, given that they represent a fraction of a per cent of the total midwifery workforce. I think not. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the UK Prime Minister acknowledges their appointment to head the mid-husband company ;-) Vikram Vincent 08:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Updated my !vote to delete after looking at the new sources presented by Bennyontheloose though my logic of context still stands. VV 21:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No attempt has been made to analyze BennyOnTheLoose's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E, looking at the coverage presented by BennyOnTheLoose and others it seems to all be from the singular event of her being appointed to her position as Chief Executive of Shell Nigeria, with the exception of an interview and a passing mention in The Guardian Nigeria. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2021 (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. ✗plicit 06:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Juma Al Majid

Khalid Juma Al Majid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page has had multiple tags since 2016. I find no substantial coverage of the subject in English-language RS. There is nothing to indicate notability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A search in Arabic produces zilch. Mccapra (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2021 (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 03:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah bin Mohammed Al Thani

Abdullah bin Mohammed Al Thani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no RS coverage of this person. I could find nothing on Google. The content on the page is, as far as I can tell, exclusively sourced to archived press releases. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2021 (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Garrett Moore

Justin Garrett Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Executive/designer does not meet WP:NBIO- coverage is either not independent or is of routine accouncements, such as being appointed to a role. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 07:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for posting this discussion, wouldn't this individual meet the general notability requirements given the fact that the NYC public arts commission's government based website (where he is mentioned multiple times) is independent and reliable in its nature? Also do you think this page or the information about Moore himself could be merged to another article if the page were to be deleted? Bedrockbob (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:54, 29 March 2021 (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) Vaticidalprophet 20:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Timpone

AfDs for this article:
Brian Timpone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

You know it's a bad sign when a biography does not contain a single reference that names the subject by name. The article was redirected in 2013 (following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Timpone) to LocalLabs, that article was in turn deleted in 2016 after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LocalLabs. In 2019 the biography was recreated, and LL article now directs here, but this biography seems like an attempt to recreat the LL article, as half of the lead is about what his company/companies do. Overall, the biography is impressive (reasonably well research), but it seems to have issues with WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, as WP:SIGCOV. The latter means that it is hard to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. All that said, given the recent coverage like [30], [31] a case could be made that this might be rewritten back into an article about his company, network or the controversy they generated. I think there is something notable here, and his name would make a valid redirect there - wherever that would be, as I am not sure right now. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I will ping editors involved in the past discussions of this topic: @GeoffreyT2000, Bernice Mosley, HighKing, ApolloLee, Allisoncornish, and DGG:. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article content does not determine notability, so if you have suggestions for improving the article, please propose them at Talk:Brian Timpone. — Newslinger talk 07:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newslinger, CTRL+F for his name is not a great metric as some content in the articles is about " Brian Timpone’s brother, Michael Timpone", a CEO of one the relevant companies. All those articles are about the company/network, and while there is some discussion of the subject, is it not the main focus of the articles. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The 37 mentions of "Timpone" in the New York Times article and the 11 mentions of "Timpone" in the Poynter Institute article are all referring to Brian Timpone, since Michael Timpone is not mentioned in these articles at all. 13 of the 14 mentions of "Timpone" in the Columbia Journalism Review article are about Brian Timpone; only one is about Michael Timpone. I am struggling to understand your claim that the "biography does not contain a single reference that names the subject by name", when there are 61 mentions of Brian Timpone in these three articles alone, not including the use of the "he", "his", and "him" pronouns.
    The assertion that "while there is some discussion of the subject, is it not the main focus of the articles" is inaccurate and severely understates the amount of coverage the articles dedicate to Brian Timpone and his work. Timpone is notable for his work in media, which—according to the reliable sources cited in the Brian Timpone article—has been conducted under a number of company names, including Local Government Information Services (LGIS), Metric Media, Franklin Archer, Locality Labs (formerly known as Journatic and LocalLabs), DirecTech LLC, Interactive Content Services, Newsinator, Blockshopper, and The Record Inc. Many of these companies are not notable on their own, but as an article subject, Brian Timpone has exceeded the requirements in WP:GNG and WP:BASIC by receiving significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources that specifically describe his role in these companies in depth. — Newslinger talk 04:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 06:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 06:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are sufficient sources. As Newslinger says, he meets WP:SIGCOV, even if the individual companies don't meet it. tedder (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There seems to be substantial RS coverage of this individual. While most of it isn't about the subject's character, the actions that he's doing and the companies he's creating and being associated with have merited RS coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because of substantial coverage, but I would also refer his sites to WP:RSN for assessment under WP:RSP. --Minoa (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have long been an advocate of keeping BLPs of powerful people. Bearian (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2021 (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) 19:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asher Holzer

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

Not notable as an Entrepreneur and Physicist Sliekid (talk) 09:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although I have not been here, in the English Wikipedia for a long time. But in the Hebrew Wikipedia I have been editing for many years. in my opinion Asher Holzer, a man who founded companies listed on the stock exchange, has many patents registered in his name and a very serious entrepreneur deserves to be in this Wikipedia as well. Hopefully Sliekid will read the sources again and agree with me. Eladkarmel (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sliekid (talk) 09:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I think folks who start and run publicly traded companies are notable. I bet the citations are out there and would like to see the author build this out. It's only been on here for a minute or two.Miaminsurance (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC) (Struck, CU blocked account). ─ The Aafī (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep as Holzer meets the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 02:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 02:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The two keep arguments assert the existence of sources but do not provide any, so they are not particularly convincing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 03:31, 21 April 2021 (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 19:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SK Jewellery Group

SK Jewellery Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable organization that doesn’t satisfy WP:NCORP. They lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search linked me to primary sources thus aren’t independent of the organization hence does next to nothing to establish notability. Celestina007 (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I did a prior search in Googlenews before creating this page. When you search "SK Jewellery Group" in googlenews, the result shows as follows
https://www.google.com/search?q=SK+Jewellery+Group&newwindow=1&tbm=nws&sxsrf=ALeKk021tfN7oNHBlwwxMYE1FzXx_hQqgg:1616577846698&ei=NgVbYJ6ZKqG3gwfx7r6oAQ&start=0&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwiejLfizcjvAhWh2-AKHXG3DxU4ChDy0wMIggE&biw=1366&bih=625&dpr=1
A lot of sources from Business Times (Singapore) and The Straits Times. These are organic sources earned by the subject.
There are also other sources found such as https://www.asiaone.com/business/sk-jewellery-launches-lab-grown-diamond-brand-star-carat-shop-diamonds-millenials, and this
https://www.theedgesingapore.com/news/company-news/sk-jewellery-shares-surge-over-50-upon-receiving-privatisation-offer
and many others. I believe that those are reliable sources. From the above, I strongly believe that the topic meets WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG and WP:NCORP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Va-be-Fratellis (talk • contribs) 09:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I notice that you created the article in one edit. For a newbie editor, this is very unusual. Have you ever edited Wikipedia previously? Do you have a connection with the company? HighKing++ 17:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't pass based on any reference I've seen. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
"Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.
An examination of the references hasn't uncovered any reference that meets the criteria. The Business Times and Straits Times articles I've seen are announcement and PR or interviews - fails WP:ORGIND. The references from The Edge mentioned above are also announcements or comments on share prices - there's nothing that meets the requirement for "Independent Content" as per ORGIND.
I'm happy to revisit my !vote if someone turns up some good references - perhaps an analyst report might exist that I haven't found. In the meantime, I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 18:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reads like an ad, and doesn't seem too notable. References are either primary or, as HighKing said, "announcement and PR or interviews". AdoTang (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - of particular concern is the repeated sourcing and citing in the article from the topic's own website with grandiose claims of this award and that award, etc. with no organization actually listed that gave the topic an award in the first place, and no independent sources found covering these "notable milestones" or "awards". Megtetg34 (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with the above, mostly press releases or quotes from their own website.Oaktree b (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Alhtough there is a lot of coverage, all are Tier 2 publications, nothing well known. Webmaster862 (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
additional comment: straitstimes.com and businesstimes.com sources have been used multiples times. Per Wiki guidelines, multiple sources from same publication would be counted once.Webmaster862 (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2021 (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 Arthur Javis University. No policy-based argument for notability has been made. Sandstein 07:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Javis Archibong

Arthur Javis Archibong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

News coverage is not enough to pass GNG. Citterz (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Citterz (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — No true notability, article is literally an advert trying to promote its subject and their works. Celestina007 (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, I have reviewed the article and removed claims and references that may be percieved as promotions.Tomiwa2020 (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Arthur Javis Archibong is a notable Nigerian in cross river state, who contributes to education at grassroot level through scholarship and education grants, He also founded Arthur javis University to help education. This article is in no way trying to promote the subject. His dad was also a notable Nigeria who was a military governor of Cross River state. Tomiwa2020 (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOTINHERITED, whether or not his father is notable has no relevance Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I know notability cannot be inherited, I mentioned that to butress the point that he is a notable Nigerian.Tomiwa2020 (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 22:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:19, 9 April 2021 (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 to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of anything resembling a consensus. BD2412 T 00:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sonita Lontoh

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

Not notable under WP:NBIO.

Some limited coverage of this person but no in-depth media coverage. Of the meaningful coverge of Sonita Lontoh, it's almost all from questionable sources like alumni blogs, conference speaker bios, and "news sites" that don't appear to have true editorial oversight.

The sources from CNN, Bloomberg, Forbes, and BBC are hardly meaningful and notible coverage. For example: the Bloomberg artcle is titled "Five Executives on How They Unplug", the CNN article is titled "avoid money talks", and the BBC article is titled "the lifestyles of the young and ultra-rich". The Forbes article is titled "Here's How To Avoid An Impersonal Hiring Process" and is the not reliable "Forbes contributor" type of article. None of these articles establish this person as a notible contributor in their field and just include a quick snippet/quote from this person off topic from their professional contributions.

It's hard to find any reliable sources to support the claims in this article. Google search mostly returns results for their speaking events at conferences. Ew3234 (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ew3234 (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable tech executive with significant participation in White House activities, and had notable positions in Fortune 500 companies. There is a lot of mainstream news coverage by major media outlets. Clearly not a NBIO fail. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DmitriRomanovJr, do you have an example of coverage by major media outlets? I looked through the sources and Google searched but wasn't able to find any reliable mainstream sources that cover this person in any sort of depth. The BBC, Bloomberg, etc articles do not cover this person in any detail (most don't even confirm their title). Ew3234 (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable under NBIO due to long history of significant recognitions from respectable institutions such as the White House, the US State Department, the World Economic Forum, MIT, and others. Notable coverage from mainstream media such as the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, the BBC, NBC and others.Yozora1 (talk) 02:37, 02 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above editor is a WP:SPA, who only to vote in this Afd. scope_creepTalk 00:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete There is certainly coverage but most is not-in-depth nor independent. We can go through the references to examine them. scope_creepTalk 00:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to HP Inc., since in depth coverages are required which solely discuss the subject. Chirota (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to HP Inc.. I checked some of the high-quality sources (BBC, NBC, WSJ) and they only mention the subject off-hand. No substantive in-depth coverage as far as I can see. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google search resulted in several detailed, meaningful coverage of her and her work from reliable, reputable secondary sources such as Tatler magazine's articles on her work in artificial intelligence [[32]] and IoT [[33]], CNN Indonesia's article on her work connecting Silicon Valley and Indonesia [[34]], CBS San Francisco's interview commentary on technology & business [[35]], Tech_in_Asia's article on her work in technology ecosystem [[36]], The Jakarta_Globe's article on her work on technology entrepreneurship [[37]] and Tempo_(Indonesian_magazine) English article on her work [[38]]. Believe subject satisfies WP:SIGCOV which states "significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content, subject is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Thank you.
user:Roulisegee 02:50, 10 April 2021 SIG Added. ‎Sig added by scope_creepTalk 10:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the above user's account is 5 days old. Their edit history suggest a SPA in disguise. Lots of small edits but only four major ones. Of their four significant edits (above 500+ characters), three are on the Sonita Lontoh (one on this Afd, two on the article). Ew3234 (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yip, but these are really decent references. scope_creepTalk 10:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are they though? Tatler Indonesia covers "Luxury Lifestyle in Indonesia" (their words, not mine) and not a source for quality technology coverage. Just look at their top stories: https://indonesiatatler.com/. They might be a reliable source but not for this subject matter. The CBS is a local piece titled "Career Path Based On Three Things, Says San Francisco Marketing Executive" which speaks volumes to the shallow depth covered in the article. The article is pretty weak as a source that establishes notability.
The CNN Indonesia article and Tech in Asia are good sources but that doesn't equal inclusion to wikipedia on its own. Both articles cover the Silicon Valley Asia Technology Alliance, which presumes notablity of Lontoh as is one of the org's co-founders. Being a tech/marketing exec who co-founded a non-profit does not equal notability, even if they do get a few articles written. Many non-profit organizations can get some coverage but it's doesn't mean one of the cofounders meets WP:BIO. It's also worth noting that the non-profit itself isn't very notable. The top google results for the org are their press releases hosted on pr web, one of the articles mentioned here, her wikipedia page, and then her linkedin. That doesn't make strong case for notability. Also notability is not temporary and I don't see much recent coverage of this org. It doesn't even seem to still be around. The website is broken: http://www.svatechnology.com/
I cannot get the tempo article to load for me. I had that problem earlier as well so I cannot speak to it at the moment. The Jakarta Globe article is a solid source but is this enough to establish this person as a notable with significant and reliable coverage of their professional contributions over the millions of other executives that have similar merits and coverage but do not meet WP:BIO? Ew3234 (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails to show WP:SIGCOV. Riteboke (talk) 08:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comment - this WEF page looks like one suitable independent source to me - not very long but has some career content. There's a 1300 word interview with Lontoh (titled "Green Hero: Sonita Lontoh") in the January 11, 2014 issue of Asian Fortune. For the article that she wrote for the San Francisco Examiner in June 2012 her mini-bio states "She is a clean technology expert recognized on Wikipedia and is a frequent speaker/contributor to publications such as FORBES, FORTUNE, CNN, etc.". Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of articles found on PressReader (Butuh Ekosistem Kuat, Jawa Pos, 2 September 2017; and Champion of Change, Prestige Indonesia, 1 Feb 2014) tip the balance just in favour of keep for me. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing the WEF link. It looks like thats an author's bio (as the links below are articles written by Lontoh). It looks like the WEF aggregates (and does not vet) content from Medium: See this disclosure on the one of Lontah's WEF article: "This post first appeared on Medium. The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum". So this bio is likely not WP:IS. I agree that the "recognized on Wikipedia" is an odd WP:CIRC. I found the Jawa Pos article but it doesn't seem to establish notability (the title translates to "These are Indonesian Executives in Silicon Valley"). Do you have links to the Prestige Indonesia articles? Ew3234 (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ew3234 The link I have for the Prestige Indonesia article is this. There are around 400 words covering Lontoh's education, family background, and career - all very positively expressed. The Jawa Pos article has a couple of paragraphs of biography - I thought this would help towards establishing notability. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2021 (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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hemant Taneja

AfDs for this article:
Hemant Taneja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP of a venture capitalist that was deleted at AfD in 2013. There is more material now but much of the sourcing here is corporate announcements. Quite a few of the refs don’t mention him at all, and there are a lot of passing mentions. There may be a GNG pass somewhere in all of this but with all the refbombing I’m not really sure. Mccapra (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the author of the article, I apologize. I didn't realize that there was a bio that was deleted previously. It looks like, at that time, he had not received substantial press coverage. However, Taneja is at this point an established expert in VC, edtech and healthtech, and has been covered as such. See:
  • Recent, long-form profile of Taneja and his business partner by Katie Jennings of Forbes (link)
  • Long-form Q&A in Boston Business Journal (link)
  • Longform Q&A in Coinbase (link)
  • WSJ coverage of Livongo (link)
Additionally, respected publications have included him in "notable" lists, including the New York Times/Crunchbase(link), the Forbes Midas List (2020 link)and Business Insider (link). While I understand that these lists do not in-and-of-themselves denote notability, they're legitimate, third-party (not PR-driven) validation of Taneja's prominence in the industry.
Also, while not qualification for notability alone, Taneja is quoted regularly by journalists in the VC/healthcare space, and featured as a key voice on disruption, edtech and investing. He is widely recognized as an expert in his field. See:
  • Quotes in in The Economist (link) or TechCrunch (link)
  • TechCrunch coverage of Taneja's 2016 INNOVATE talk (link)
  • CNBC featured expert on crypto (link)
  • Featured member of Barron's VC roundtable (link)
  • Featured in NPR's program on disruptive innovation (link)
Finally, his investments get substantial reputable coverage, and Taneja is featured regularly. See NYT on Snapchat (link), Bloomberg on Olive (link), WSJ on Grammarly (link), or TechCrunch on Digit (link), among others. WisePraline (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, but one more. He was also featured in MIT Spectrum for his philanthropy. (link). WisePraline (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to be a thought leader who has helped bring some major companies to market. I wish he had that big, glowing profile but those are so hard to come by these days anyway. Miaminsurance (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE — MarkH21talk 05:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete A paid for article. Not a thought-leader and bringing companies to market isn't an indication of notability. The first 10 references are very poor.
  1. [39] Search listing. Non-RS.
  2. [40] Profile listing
  3. [41]] Another profile. Not independent.
  4. [42] Company position for funding. This is a BLP.
  5. [43] An interview. Not independebt.
  6. [44] Company news.
  7. [45] As a company reference is fails WP:ORGIND.
  8. [46] Another company page.
  9. Same ref 4 as above.
  10. [47] An announcement to say he has moved to SF.

Not a single secondary source amongst the lot of them. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIGCOV, [{WP:BIO]]. It is brochure articles disguised as a BLP. scope_creepTalk 16:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per all the well argued points of the editor who made the Strong delete argument above.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I obviously disagree with the idea that this is a paid article (and concerns about this and NPOV have already been discussed and addressed in the article) but to the other points that Scope creep raises:
  • MIT Profile (#2 above) MIT Spectrum is not a profile listing. I'm not proposing that it alone is RS, but it's not a corporate profile.
  • Thought Leadership: I'm curious how Scope creep would define "Thought Leader" given that Taneja:
  • Venture Capitalist Notability: I disagree strongly that building, investing in and "bringing companies to market" is not an indication of notability in the venture capital space. A quick review of Existing VCs on Wikipedia produces hundreds of individuals who are notable specifically because they have built, invested in and brought companies to market.
I should note that I would welcome input from the community on how to improve the article (and have, again, already worked with multiple editors to do so, and will continue to do so). However, I fail to see how a quick review of a handful references is at all an argument for a "strong delete." (Please pardon/feel free to correct any formatting issues here.) WisePraline (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jumping back in here to note that I've also begun to overhaul the sources in the article, including additional profiles of Taneja and cutting less reputable sources. WisePraline (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just because someone is not a household name, it doesn't mean they aren't notable (I've run into this issue with contributions); Taneja is notable in finance and that should be taken into consideration Pogobryan (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Saying keep without evidence to support verification of fact is against policy and is egregious. This editor is WP:SPA. scope_creepTalk 10:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The paper at [48] is only cited by two people, [49] which is a remarkably low cite count for even people in the financial industry. The Sloan review is not in-depth, like most of the coverage. Since there has been an attempt at WP:HEY, lets look at the references again:
Ref 1: [50] It is a blog. It is not independent.
Ref 2: [51] This one is contentious as it is an alumni magazine.
Ref 3: [52] An announcement to say he has moved to SF. It is also a press-release.
Ref 4: [53] It is an announcement. Press-release.
Ref 5: [54] 40 under 40. These X of Y articles went out with the ark. Really low-quality ref.
Ref 6: [55] An investment notice, press-release. Non-RS. This a BLP.
Ref 7: [56] Taneja tells FORBES Not-independent.
Ref 8: [57] Snapchat is the company that will figure out how to move TV viewers to mobile,” said Hemant Taneja, a Snapchat investor and managing director at the venture firm General Catalyst Partners. “YouTube and others have worked hard to bring video to mobile devices, but Snapchat is the first to crack how users behave on mobile. Not in-depth.
Ref 9: [58] Not in-depth. A passing mention.
Ref 10: [59] Press-release.
Ref 11: [60] Hemant Taneja of General Catalyst Partner came in at No. 70 on the list. Not in-depth.
Ref 12: [61] Non-RS. Forbes contributor.
Ref 13: [62] Non-RS. Forbes contributor.
Ref 14: [63] An interview.
Ref 15: [64] We think that companies like Livongo can reduce healthcare costs by $100 billion in diabetes alone,” said Taneja in a statement. Not-independent.

So of the first 15 references, 3 are dependent sources, 5 are non-rs, 3 are press-releases, 1 is an interview, 1 an alumni magazine and 1 is an X of Y references which are the lowest quality ref that is possible to get (simply there generate clickbait). Another very poor attempt at WP:HEY. scope_creepTalk 10:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Scope_creep, Could you point me to a WP definition of "press release" and "independent" please? We have material differences in understanding and WP:Reliable sources isn't turning anything up. Specifically, I'm concerned with your definitions of the following sources:
Ref 1: Silicon Valley Business Journal is not a blog. It's part of the American City Business Journals newspaper chain and has a clear editorial masthead. The writer of the piece is the editor in charge of startup/tech coverage for the paper. It is independent.
Ref 3: Xconomy is not a press release. It is literally a news article on the person in question, written again by an independent journalist.
Ref 4: Again, American City Business Journals, different (again independent) journalist. Not a blog.
Ref 6: Alex Konrad is the senior editor at Forbes covering venture capital. He is an independent journalist, writing a story about a significant player in the venture capital space.
Ref 8: Ingred Lunden is an independent TechCrunch journalist covering venture capital. This is a T1 tech publication writing an independent article about a significant technology company, of which Taneja is an investor.
Ref 14: Katie Jennings is a staff writer at Forbes. This is a feature article on Taneja in a leading business publication.
Ref 15: At the risk of [beating a dead horse here, TechCrunch is an independent magazine and website, and this is an article written about Taneja's company being launched, covered by [Jonathan Shieber, who is, again, a reputable tech journalist who feels Taneja and his company are worth coverage.
WisePraline (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet 00:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

::@Vaticidalprophet: You are what is known as a WP:SPA in Wikipedia. All you do ever is work on that article and I honestly don't know if you know what good reference is. The fact that you don't know what independent means, means that you never even looked at the notability policies. Biographies of living people require multiple in-depth reliable sources about them that are independent of the subject. All that is seen her, tons of paid advocacy. scope_creepTalk 11:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Did you ping the wrong user? ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aseleste: I did indeed. Thanks for pointing that out. scope_creepTalk 12:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clear it up, Scopecreep headed to my talk page to explain the mixup and there are no hard feelings. :) Vaticidalprophet 15:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scope_creep I've read the notability policies multiple times, both before writing the article, and while trying to figure out how anyone could insist that Taneja isn't notable. My comments around defining press release and independent were tongue-in-cheek, because I believe that you're using the terms incorrectly.

As I wrote before, I'm happy to work with you to improve the article, because I think that it's for the best of Wikipedia. However, the discussion here is whether Hemant Taneja is notable and whether this article should be deleted. It should not be:

  • Taneja has received coverage in multiple published, secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject. As per my comment above, Taneja has been the subject of coverage in Forbes, TechCrunch and multiple smaller (but still unconflicted) sources, which meet the requirements of WP:Independent_sources.
  • While there is reason to dispute that certain sources, such as the 40 under 40 listing, articles about Taneja's portfolio companies, or the MIT Spectrum profile, would alone confer notability (as you have done), those articles are secondary and support only small points in his biography.

WisePraline (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I don't know if this is a paid-for article, but both the article and the Keep statements have many of the usual features of a paid-for article:
      • The Keep statements include walls of text that make it difficult to challenge the article.
      • The article has been reference-bombed with low-quality sources, which make it difficult to test the notability.
      • The subject is defended as a "thought leader", which is in itself a flag of marketing buzzspeak.
      • After reading the article, I still don't know what the subject does other than to invest money.
    • The article does not make a case for general notability, and the article should make that case without the reader having to wade through 37 references.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Thanks for your feedback Robert McClenon. I've pared down the references significantly. Please let me know if you have other suggestions for improving the article.
Not sure how to respond to the allegations of verbosity though :)
(Also, minor point of order: Taneja was never referred to in-article as a "thought leader," and there isn't buzzspeak in the article. Another editor, with whom I have no association, raised the term) WisePraline (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The analysis of each presented source show that there currently is insufficient significant coverage about Taneja from independent secondary sources to satisfy WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. Also, none of the keep !votes really identify RS evidence that actually go towards this person satisfying a notability guideline.
    The closest that I could find are the two Forbes articles (1, 2); they are both similar in that most of the text is Taneja talking about specific companies rather than Forbes talking about Taneja. The second article falls short of being significant coverage, while the first article is right on the borderline. Altogether, there isn't quite enough for GNG but it is a somewhat close case.
    It is also worth pointing out that there is one review for one of the books that the subject co-authored (review for Unscaled) and something that I thought was a review at first but is so short and un-review-like that it appears to be a news release for the other book (link for UnHealthcare). The actual review goes towards WP:NAUTHOR#3, but we would need to more published independent reviews to satisfy that criterion. — MarkH21talk 06:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Scope creep's assessment above. Riteboke (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2021 (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) 18:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Bhatia

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

WP:ADMASQ article on an “angel investor” businessman and engineer who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. The REFBOMBING is a facade to create a mirage of notability. A WP:BEFORE search confirms their non notability and hits found are mainly in unreliable sources such as this & user generated sources which are not to be considered reliable. Celestina007 (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article lacks the level of in-depth sourcing we need for an actual passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His works have been covered by BBC, Yahoo, Huffpost and Search Engine Journal which makes him pass per WP:THREE. Also this segment from WP:NACADEMICS is relevant here: "However, academics may also work outside academia and their primary job does not need to be academic if they are known for their academic achievements." Chiro725 (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ashish Bhatia is well known for his contribution in developing social media tools, writing books. He was mentioned in several well known sites so this article should not be deleted. --Hushraitloy (talk) 09:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has done some notable works. May pass WP:GNG ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 11:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the idea that NACADEMIC applies to this person is contra to the spirit of the sources provided which are all general interest rather than academic in nature. Timnit Gebru would have been an example of an academic working outside academia. When actually examining the links provided you have is coverage of the patent he wrote. All the sources provided are really the same story, with no actual biographical coverage of Bhatia. I have not done the requisite work to establish that he's not notable so I'm not formally !delete, but I challenge the assertions made, essentially without evidence or backing in guideline or practice, that he is notable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, lacks sigcov to sufficiently establish WP:GNG further indeed masquerded article, 2/3 is promoting anyway CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Of course there are levels of notability and there are outstanding examples with which we can not compare when it comes to assessing notability for a subject. Timnit Gebru is certainly more notable than Bhatia, but that does not imply Bhatia is non-notable. Also, NACADEMIC never says we need biographical coverage. In fact it says coverage about the work and achievement of an academic which we clearly have here in several highly respected media like BBC, Hffpost, Yahoo, SEJ etc. Chirota (talk) 10:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per reasons and sources indicated above. A handful of primary sources in the article should be removed. Other than that, it's good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 10:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - three reliable sources quote him, and that's usually my standard for notability. However, there's nothing other than a single paragraph in each source, barely mentioning that he's an engineeer and quoting him, interview-style. Reasonable minds could differ whether this is WP:SIGCOV, but for argument's sake, I accept that's enough. Bearian (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2021 (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. Opinions of low-participation accounts are given little weight, leaving a clear consensus for deletion. BD2412 T 04:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nana Ama Poku

Nana Ama Poku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is not inherited from being a Deputy CEO of a bank. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - mid-level functionary of a quasi-government bank. Fails WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject under discussion is notable for various tangible references which justifies her notability. The subject has track records of enough information online which makes her notable. Her contribution and recognition as a Ghanaian Banking executive is clearly significant in most media platforms online especially. Not only is the subject a Deputy CEO, but is noted for her contribution to Banking and Businesses in Ghana. There have been cases where she is often interviewed on major news platforms in Ghana to educate and talk about investment and businesses in Ghana. Respectyourselfhere (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the "keep" !vote does not address WP:GNG and hence I am currently leaning towards closing as delete, I am going to need further analysis of the sources present in the article before a consensus is reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable for her significant roles in the Ghanaian banking sector. WP:GNG. Zbonzome (talk). 06:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this account is a newly-created WP:SPA. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 08:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject meets the notability criteria since she has been significantly recognised by many media houses in Ghana and the sources cited are verifiable Robert Jamal …talk to me💬 16:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable for various tangible references and her significant roles.Jemima2019 (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: a WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable executive. Does not meet WP:BASIC per review of available sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per above. I can't attest to Zbonzome's claim that the subject holds "significant roles" (Deputy Chief Executive Officer...Member of the Chartered Institute of Marketing... doesn't seem all that encyclopedically significant on it's face), and unlike Robertjamal12, I don't see how the sources are "verifiable", etc. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: clearly nothing more than a promo page and Wikipedia is not Linkedin or a "Who's who". See WP:NOTNEWS. Kierzek (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2021 (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arny Schorr

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

Poorly-sourced promo piece about non-notable exec, fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete overly promotional article on a non-notable individual. If we are going to throw around words like "pioneer" we need lots of sources to justify it. Extraordinary claims (being a pioneer in a field) require sourcing that match them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As one of the executives since the start of the home video business, the claim is legitimate and is supported by the articles included, but I will add more today.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradmarcus (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 11:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The two billboard sources are significant enough to establish notability, which is all that matters. The comment regarding being a "pioneer" is irrelevant to a deletion and should be taken up on the talk page as part of the editing process. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Needs a lot of work, and is probably my Terrible BLP Image of the Day. I've come around about "articles that might be notable but need a ton of work"; a lot of stuff is worse than a redlink, in terms of ever actually getting improved. That said, I don't think this is worse than a redlink. Those sources might be difficult to draw up at first, and if they aren't, there's likely even more that is considering the era involved (trust me -- any newspaper coverage on Google from the 70s/80s is about 5% or so of what you can get in paywalled search sites). I think there's enough demonstrated here for people to be encouraged to rewrite it. Vaticidalprophet 17:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 00:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most newspaper mentions are in wire service articles where he is quoted in his capacity at Rhino in 1989–90. I'd merge or redirect to Rhino Entertainment, personally. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect with no prejudice against recreation if someone can find adequate sourcing. With the sources that are in the article right now, I don't see notability as established – I can't see the online Billboard source, but the book one doesn't strike me as very significant coverage, and the NYT pieces go into the same direction; since this is a BLP, I believe that we need to take special care when it comes to sourcing standards, and unless the remaining Billboard source backs up all the content currently in the article, I don't think it's sufficiently verifiable to stay up. Blablubbs|talk 16:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Rhino Entertainment, with no prejudice against restoring to draft if additional sourcing can be found. Removing the unusable content from this article would leave nothing worth calling an article. This level of introduction of material should not be rewarded with any measure short of deletion. BD2412 T 05:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attempted a rescue: I have tried to fix its tone to be more professional, please take a look there. I do not know, however, whether it is really that notable, and I am neutral over that. --DePlume (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - content rescued and additional sources added. Article also reorganized and the lead was expanded. Two companies that he founded got sparing coverage, which just barely puts him over the top, and also argues against a single redirect. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - his direct connection to Rhino and the Variety story are the bare minimum for notability. Bearian (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The NYT source is a single passing mention and one the Billboard sources is a 404 error. Nothing here convinces me of notability and in my book this fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   18:57, 7 April 2021 (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 Adrian Cheng#Personal life. Content worth merging is available from the history. Randykitty (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Yu Cheng

Jennifer Yu Cheng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are not indepth sources to passes her WP:GNG Gritmem (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Striking comment of blocked nominator. Cunard (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Gritmem (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have blocked the nominator for WP:UPE, however I wish this nomination to be evaluated on its merits. MER-C 19:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Adrian Cheng#Personal life, her husband, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. The sources I found primarily covered the subject in the context of coverage about her husband. I am willing to switch to supporting a standalone article if substantial coverage about Jennifer Yu Cheng can be found.

    This 13 November 2020 article in Apple Daily notes, "新世界發展（017）執行副主席鄭志剛（Adrain）大家唔陌生，佢太太余雅穎（Jennifer）就相對低調，主打家族嘅教育事業，不過近排悄悄地有新搞作，華華聽聞佢上個月成立咗間新公司「鄭余雅穎培菁女性創效基金」，英文就係「Jennifer Yu Cheng Girls Impact Foundation」，用自己個名嚟命名，唔知搞邊科呢？"

    From Google Translate: "Adrain, Executive Vice Chairman of New World Development (017), is not unfamiliar to everyone. His wife, Jennifer, is relatively low-key, focusing on family education, but there are new things in recent days. She established a new company named 「鄭余雅穎培菁女性創效基金」. The English name is 'Jennifer Yu Cheng Girls Impact Foundation'."

    If Jennifer Yu Cheng receives more coverage in the future (which is possible if she stops being "relatively low-key"), there is no prejudice against undoing the redirect and restoring the standalone article.

    Cunard (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you are the creator of the article please disclose any paid editing. And as a new editor, i advise you to read WP:GNG and WP:BIO first.
And your username, is it a short form of "kindergarden finder"? Not sure it violate username policy or not. Matthew hk (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Her role is building girls and women's impact, and investment from the group she is strategic director of is cited in edit.Kaybeesquared (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is significant news coverage, enough IMO. Lesliechin1 (talk) 09:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The news coverage is far from significant . They are routine coverage. Also per user:Cunard. Matthew hk (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and still vote forKeep - at the risk of adding more fuel to the delete votes, her daughter is an award winner too Sonia Cheng, should mother be merge into Sonia's page than with her husband, given her interest in developing women and girls, or replace all of them with a Cheng family page if none of them are cited as notable on their own, the son (also Adrian) does not seem to have an article? [1]Kaybeesquared (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like it is either merge or keep. Currently heading towards merge as some keep !votes are not as based in policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect per Cunard, we'll have to trim it down and maybe re-write it, since there are not a lot of reliable sources. CanadianOtaku Talk Page 20:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sources 11, 20 and 21 qualify as significant independent coverage from reliable sources. That passes GNG. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.wsj.com/articles/meet-adrian-and-sonia-cheng-power-siblings-behind-some-of-the-worlds-most-luxurious-hotels-11549290552
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 20:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you can read Chinese, Jennifer is the wife of Adrain Cheng , while Sonia is the sister of Adrain . Matthew hk (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, her "notability" is derived from Cheng family's investment. Merely as a director of an Education provider is not notable and those "coverage" are just gossip. Matthew hk (talk) 01:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For Sonia Cheng's GNG. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. Matthew hk (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Businesspeople&oldid=1016780476"