Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Kam

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) Natg 19 (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Kam

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Being an upper-mid level business executive (managing director of the Hong Kong Disneyland) isn't enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but major revision, or delete per WP:TNT. Despite the name, Kam is the equivalent of CEO to HKDL. But instead of discussing his work of pulling HKDL out of a deficit [1][2], the current article is an WP:UNDUE-fest focusing on the more mundane facts say his daughter liking which Disney character. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 11:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kam has gotten some significant media coverage. From the sources I've read, it seems that he is in charge of the Disney World, and not just a rank and file member of leadership. Also, I do not think this article is nearly bad enough to justify a nuke and pave. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While being an upper-mid level business executive isn't enough for WP:ANYBIO, being covered in multiple reliable independent sources ([3][4][5]) in detail is enough for WP:BASIC.--218.81.14.78 (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep couldn't find much coverage, but the ones I did find could pass as notable. Also I will suggest adding on to the article and references. Many strong references not included. Chosenone Pie (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2015 (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.