Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Onses

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Onses

[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)

not notable as scientist, businessman or politican. The corresponding article has been been deleted from the French WP [1] DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found nothing to indicate notability. Mccapra (talk) 09:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not meeting our notability criteria in any of his endevors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Badly fails WP:NPOL as a losing candidate. His role as a VP in a NASDAQ-traded company is classic WP:MILL: there are thousands of such business persons. Bearian (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from actually having to clear WP:GNG on his sources: businesspeople are not automatically notable just because they exist, writers are not automatically notable just because their writing technically metaverifies its own existence, unsuccessful political candidates are not automatically notable just because it's possible to verify their vote totals, and on and so forth. The article is not well-sourced, and nothing stated in the article body hands him an automatic notability freebie in the absence of much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2021 (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.