Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Weller

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. Spinning Spark 17:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Weller

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

Close paraphrase of his web page, and promotional, and dubious notability. (I thought it close enough to be a speedy G12, but no other admin seems to have agreed in 24 hours.)

The key claim is no.17 out of 25 on the Forbes Midas list . I do not think this amounts to notability -- looking at our article, the people in the top 4 or 5 on the list seem to be generally recognized as notable enough to have articles, but not the others. The criteria for people in this profession must be either real non-PR based press coverage or major national awards. , and I think not a single one of the references amounts to independent coverage, except for #6, .privateequityonline.com, which I think routine coverage in a more general article, and the Forbes interview at #3, connected with his placement on the list. I think we need an opinion whether this is enough; if it is, then it's a matter of rewriting the article so it follows the sources less closely. I could argue either direction. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the time being. While not a policy, WP:Too soon explains my thoughts on this topic. Right now, the subject's only claims to verified notability are a Chicago Tribune article and a very brief Forbes Midas List bio. This is far from significant coverage. It's likely that Mr. Weller will be eminently notable in a few years, but he really isn't right now. dci | TALK 02:24, 9 March 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.