Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Hildreth

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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Hildreth

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Promotional article on an entrepreneur who fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO, article is currently sourced to primary sources, unreliable sources and one dead link. A search brought up a couple of passing mentions and one interview which is here, but nothing that would cause him to pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Delete Venture Beat (generally reliable per WP:RSPSOURCES) - [1], Forbes - [2], TheBusinessDesk (reliable?) - [3], Yorkshire Post - [4]. WP:SIGCOV is an issue though, if you exclude all the direct quotations from the sources. I'll reconsider my !vote after other comments. - hako9 (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable entrepreneur. A before search shows media coverage of the subject and if more thorough search was conducted it will yield more positive result. I will now add some few sources to save this article. Northern Escapee (talk) 7:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Of the sources you added that are actually worth considering, one of them is a Forbes piece with no author byline that is very clearly a promotional puff piece, and the other is a passing mention. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further input on the new sources added would assist in forming a clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca ^talk 19:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. There's at least one additional very reliable source that was added. Bearian (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2020 (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.