Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. Lloyd Mahaffey

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 speedy delete per CSD G11 by DGG (non-admin closure). TonyBallioni (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C. Lloyd Mahaffey

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

Despite the article's impressive claims I do not see that Mahaffey meets the standards of notability. Four of the references are press releases, a fifth is an interview, the ancient Computer World article only quotes him withouth covering Mahaffey himself in any detail. All key claims in the article are unsupported by the given secondary sources. My own searches, both news and books, have not yielded anything better. Huon (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I think this article is great and certainly notable. References are certainly notable as well. So I'm going to go with Keep on this one. ThepoliticalLib (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC) ThepoliticalLib is a sockpuppet evading a previous block. Huon (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He has had a successful career, but it doesn't seem to have attracted enough attention to generate in-depth coverage in reliable sources by independent writers. It doesn't meet Wikipedia's definition of notable, which is noticed (already written about in other places). Business publications don't make content easy to see however. If there are significant articles there it would be another story. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not all successful businessmen are notable, as per previous comment. Google doesn't find anything not already referenced. Article also contains irrelevant peacock language and appears written to praise him. That isn't a reason to delete, but it does explain why the article was written. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2016 (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.