Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Caponigro

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The result was Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Caponigro[edit]

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

Puff piece for a non-notable person. A BLP PROD was removed but no substantial, reliable sources were added. There's a minor award from the U of Central Michigan, and that's it; board members of such a university are not automatically notable. Drmies (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yup... the "article" reads like a resume. However, news coverage from 1995 through 2010[1] would seem indicative that this article might be salvagable with a major rewrite. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not quite finding the right kind of coverage to attempt a rewrite, but I will reserve judgement and see if anyone can work magic on it. Here's some sources I did find:[2][3][4][5][6] Fences&Windows 23:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 23:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 14:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Following MichaelQSchmidt's cleanup, I think we can keep this. I think he just passes the GNG, and this isn't spammy now. Fences&Windows 01:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks... and I appreciate your pointing the way to possibilities. I also believe as well, that with a very very careful eye out for return of spam or unverifiable information, it is now worth keeping. Admittedly it was one of the more difficult articles to steam-clean... and if it were not for the long weekend, it might not have been done. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Damn you, MQS, you West-Coast inclusionist. My evil plan foiled again! To any passing admin: Nomination withdrawn. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 4 July 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.