Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earl W. Stafford

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 keep. Shimeru (talk) 08:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earl W. Stafford

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

Non-notable biography in my opinion. See WP:BIO. bender235 (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 20:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 20:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What about it doesn't establish notability? The references just need to actually be linked into the reference section and the entire article should be cleaned up, but he appears notable to me. Silver seren^C 20:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject is a notable philanthropist. Article needs a lot of cleanup. I will edit some. Hopefully that will prevent deletion. rdh2010 —Preceding undated comment added 03:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment With the latest and very thorough edits, I believe this article is ready to be recommended for assessment and should minimally recieve a B rating. Do we all concur? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.198.152.66 (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the minimal participation at the moment, I doubt it. Its still up for deletion at the moment, and this probably needs to be relisted for another week.--Milowent (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just needs a lot of cleanup. Certainly seems notable enough. Howan (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2010 (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.