Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murray Newlands (3rd nomination)

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 and salt. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Newlands

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

Rewritten from the previously deleted material, but no more notable--the references are press releases or mere announcements DGG ( talk ) 15:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This was on my watchlist and when it was created I compared it with the old, deleted version and I don't see where anything has changed enough for an article. Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Subject seems to be notable when we examine links of Forbes, Huffington Post here and here. Although, there are lot of other primary sources but subject seems to meet notability. There are lot of online resources which makes subject notable, O1 visa itself seems to make subject notable. Subject seems to be a regular contributor at Entrepreneur‎.com, Inc Magazine, Business Insider and several others. There doesn't seems to be any question of notability.Ireneshih (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Nothing has changed from the last time this was deleted. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't interviews primary, and therefore unusable for establishing notability? The Forbes article didn't cut it last time, and if anything, the sources seem like they might be a little worse this time around. Digital Journal as a source? No way. Smells like self-promotion (again). Grayfell (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt. Three strikes and he's out. There is simply not significant coverage about him as required for GNG or BIO. The Forbes and HuffPo links are interviews, and not with regular staff but with bloggers and "contributors", as in "Opinions expressed by Forbes contributors are their own." The fact that he writes for various publications and social media does not make him notable; he has to be written ABOUT by independent reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2015 (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.