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. LizRead!Talk! 23:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Not meeting GNG, BIO. No reliable sources.
BoraVoro (
talk) 16:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Not sure the award is notable, rest of this reads like a CV, with simply confirmation of employment.
Oaktree b (
talk) 16:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I don't think "no reliable sources" is a fair description of the article. The notability claim is a bit buried in the article - he's known primarily as a philanthropist. See eg
[1] (unfortunately no byline) and
[2]. Those don't add up to a keep !vote, but I think we ought to do a more thorough look for sources before deleting this one. --
asilvering (
talk) 22:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
StarMississippi 22:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: I don't agree with
WP: BEFORE. Considering sources is not variably the reason to delete. There are sources to support certain claim. I will suggest rewriting. Otuọcha (
talk) 06:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: I see reprints of publications in different outlets. Aside from those reprints (which are obviously paid for), there are no articles to prove the notability of this subject. It also gives me the
WP: PAID or
WP:COI vibes.
Reading Beans 13:04, 26 February 2024 (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.