Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul F Glenn

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. ST47 (talk) 04:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul F Glenn[edit]

[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)

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. The sourcing provided doesn't meet the bar and I wasn't able to find anything else that did.

PacBizTimes is a local publication for businesses (ie a double whammy of low audience impact)
CrunchBase is not only a business listing, it's user-generated, so unreliable
Sharon Herold obituaries are user-submitted, so are not reliable/independent
Obviously the Glenn foundation's own website is not an independent source
Inside Philanthropy appears to simply be a directory-style listing, although it's paywalled so I'm willing to AGF that there could be more in-depth content below what's visible without logging in
Rejuvenation Research is technically an academic journal, but it has, er, issues with self-citation and inflating its own impact factor, so reliability is questionable. It's also an interview, which is a primary source.
EurekAlert is a "news release distribution service", which means that any content on it is not independent.
InsideEko purports to be a newspaper but is hosted on WordPress. Come on.

Obviously if this is the best that's available we can't retain this article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Anyone can buy their name on a professorship at Harvard by contributing $5 million to the university. That does not mean you can get yourself a page in Wikipedia by doing that. DGG ( talk ) 07:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:GNG, and DGG. Harvard University is for sale, but Wikipedia is not. Bearian (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, PR, fails WP:GNG --Devokewater (talk) 11:13, 23 October 2020 (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.