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 that though some sources need removal/cleanup, there is sufficient SIGCOV from acceptable sources to demonstrate notability
Nosebagbear (
talk) 16:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Article doesn't establish notability,not independently notable outside of his company, no significant discussion of the subject in multiple reliable sources, fails
WP:GNG.
Meeanaya (
talk) 06:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. There appears to be enough coverage to meet
WP:SIGCOV from the sources already cited in the article.
4meter4 (
talk) 20:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep There is an awful lot of puffery here but
WP:NOTCLEANUP applies. There are sources that are of borderline reliability, but there is enough to endorse
WP:SIGCOV.
Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 22:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 02:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep – Per a source review and source searches, the subject meets
WP:BASIC, although on a bit of a weaker level of the spectrum. North America1000 14:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.