Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Keighran

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Keighran[edit]

I think complety biographyical and lack of info. Rabbit67890 (talk) 07:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 08:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - has lots of articles in many business journals, passes WP:BIO requirements. --Triwbe (talk) 08:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Easy Keep. Significant RS coverage. Nom would do well to read WP:BEFORE. It took just 20 seconds to see some of the Ghits, not much of an addition to the 120 seconds from page creation that it took to nominate the article for deletion. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was going to argue for merge with Bluepulse, but it looks like that article was deleted twice via proposed deletion due to some notability concerns. The vast majority of the business journals I saw were in reference to his involvement with Bluepulse. Mr. Keighran doesn't seem to establish notability as an individual distinct from his company, see [1]. Alternatively, recreate Bluepulse and merge Mr. Keighran into it. LagrangeCalvert_{<Talk / Contribs>} 08:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Spaceman Spiff has it right.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a quick search shows there is plenty of coverage of him in reliable sources to easily meet the GNG, A new name 2008 (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Orderinchaos 10:58, 6 July 2009 (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.