Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Mostyn (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. Stifle (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Mostyn

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

WP:BLP of a person, relying entirely on primary sources with the exception of one article in a reliable source, of a person who, by virtue of a "change of title" technicality, just barely escapes being speediable as a straight WP:G4 — except for that one change of title within an organization that he was already involved with last time, the actual content of the article, and the quality of the sourcing provided to support it, are still substantively the same as before. Three of the four sources here are his own LinkedIn profile, a press release on the website of the organization he works for, and a raw table of election results for his unsuccessful political candidacies — and the one acceptable source here, #1, is not enough coverage to qualify him for an article by itself. Being the CEO of an organization is not a notability freebie if the sourcing for it is this limited, and being an unsuccessful candidate for election to political office is not a valid claim of notability at all — but a Google search confirms that the coverage with his name in it is almost entirely of the "namechecking his existence" variety, with not even close to enough of the "substantively about him" kind of coverage to claim WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CEO of a significant organization. Down Kitty (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"CEO of a significant organization" is not a notability freebie on Wikipedia — a CEO of an organization, regardless of its significance or lack thereof, only gets a standalone article on Wikipedia if you can reliably source him over WP:GNG as an individual. Bearcat (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass notability guidelines let alone WP guidelines for Politicians.Orasis (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like this subject continues to get recreated. Discussions have noted the he doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN. I agree w/ Bearcat that anything in search just defines who he is and contains his comments on other topics. Not sure about the G4 aspect, but doesn't look notable to me. Jppcap (talk) 04:03, 4 February 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.