Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Carter (executive)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Secret account 03:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keith Carter (executive) (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)
Non notable business consultant. The only independent reference cited in the article, the Business Times ref, is about a round table discussion the article subject participated in, it's not actually about Carter. I've looked and I cannot find independent biographical sources, so I believe this fails the general notability guideline and the guideline on people and should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:31, 12 August 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, Theopolisme (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can find no coverage about him. With such a common name, I may missed some results by applying other words to filter, so I am open to reviewing sources presented here. But at this time, I don't see that WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:ACADEMIC is met and those appear to be the applicable guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Above descriptions apt. Article is largely an advert. Agricola44 (talk) 21:32, 26 August 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.