Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Corfield

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 redirect to Adobe FrameMaker#History. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Corfield

[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)

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Potentially notable but zero coverage. Prod1 and 2 tags which were accurare, have been removed by caustic WP:SPA. scope_creep^Talk 00:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per the PROD and PROD2 tags, there is zero-SIGCOV on this person in any RS, despite being a WP BLP for over 20 years. The only RS is on the Times rich-list (net worth is c £100m), and their donations to Cambridge (who named a lizard after him in return). If being rich is WP:N, the he would be a pass, but he is almost a ghost in terms of GNG. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Adobe FrameMaker#History. I added the prod2. Rationale was: Likely most notable as being the creator of FrameMaker, but WP:NOTINHERITED and what RS coverage I found (e.g. [1]) is focused on the software rather than its creator. Jfire (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't appear relevant or notable. Not enough sources either and they are non-reliable from my POV. StarryNightSky11 ^☎ 03:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 07:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject's notability is not evident.JRed176 (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adobe FrameMaker#History. The creation of FrameMaker is notable, but there is not much coverage of the subject here, and it anyway looks like a WP:BLP1E. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. Creating FrameMaker sounds like the sort of thing that might reasonably lead to notability, but it needs GNG-level in-depth coverage of the subject (separated enough from the coverage of FrameMaker to show independent notability). It's the sort of thing that might have been published in a trade magazine of the time, but I couldn't find anything like that, and without the sources, we have no independent notability. Redirects are cheap, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2023 (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.