Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard A. Cargill

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. Lacking independent reliable sources providing significant coverage of him as an individual. RL0919 (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard A. Cargill[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)

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Notability is not inherited like wealth, and I am unable to find multiple reliable sources that discuss him in a significant way. ... discospinster _talk 20:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is fundamentally incorrect. The whole point (read the Forbes article) is that this family is incredibly secretive. Your inability to uncover their secrets does not make these billionaires unnotable. Hawerchuk (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We can't report on secretive people unless some whistleblower spills the beans, so to speak. Wikipedia doesn't do original research. Unless he has news coverage or some other sort of notability, he does not pass criteria for inclusion. Delete per what I said and nom. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 00:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. No indication of individual notability. Simply being part of a family does not make one notable. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How does he differ in notability from his father Austen S. Cargill II, who has had a page for 6 years? Hawerchuk (talk) 05:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG, WP:SYNTH, and WP:SOAP. Notability is not inherited normally from who one's family; of course there's exceptions such as royalty. Lacking significant coverage in reliable sources, the person is by definition not notable, even if he's famous and wealthy. Also, we don't make up stuff or add opinion to fill in an encyclopedia article. We are a charitable not-for-profit and as such can't politicize our services; if someone has an ax to grind, there are many free blogs (might I suggest DailyKos?). Bearian (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dailykos? Is it 2006? Hawerchuk (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. I might also suggest salting this as it has been deleted and recreated before and the page creator seems a bit tendentious in this discussion. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not make accusations here. On first creation, the article got a speedy deletion tag. I posted a reason that it should not be subject to speedy deletion, and a different editor ignored that and deleted it. As I understand it, that should not have happened, hence I re-created the page. Hawerchuk (talk) 04:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't understand Wikipedia policies, so maybe you should stop creating articles until you do. An admin will have read your objection and decided that the article should still be deleted. You are also not helping your cause with these comments. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawerchuk: You are thinking of proposed deletion here. A speedy deletion can still take place after an objection. ... discospinster _talk 13:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Suggest salting to prevent re-creation.4meter4 (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2019 (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.