Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Gehl

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. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Gehl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Even less evidence for notability than the Corey Rudi article. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Subject has written for and appeared on many news publications. The article is written like an advertisement, but doesn't quite hit that threshold. Very weak keep. PrairieKid (talk) 01:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Has no claim to notability whatsoever. I'm astonished that an article about this person has been on Wikipedia for six years. Coretheapple (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Poorly sourced, and being the CEO of a company that doesn't have an article is not a particularly compelling claim of notability. No prejudice against future recreation if somebody can actually write and source a better article than this, but this version doesn't demonstrate much actual notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2013 (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.