Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Hoare (environmentalist)

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. ✗plicit 01:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Hoare (environmentalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

No indication that Hoare meets WP:BIO. He was born into a notable British banking family, but WP:NOTINHERITED. He has possibly served on the board of some charities (some citations fail to verify these facts), but he has not done anything notable while serving on those boards. He has founded a non-notable software company. Google searches do not generate any significant information about him. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• PS: The article was created by Unirisk32, a username clearly associated with Hoare's "Universal Risk" organization,^[1] so there may be an element of self-promotion here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — likewise couldn't find any independent, significant coverage to establish requisite notability. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 22:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - None of the sourcing in the article is useful for establish notability as they are not independent reliable sources. I can find nothing that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2022 (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.