Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregg L. Witt

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. ✗plicit 11:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Gregg L. Witt

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Gregg L. Witt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

No independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 11:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Minnesota. Shellwood (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• Delete. Purely promotional; appears to be authored by subject; little in the way of independent reliable sources showing notability. Kablammo (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a platform to post an add to solicit your next speaking engagement. The person who put this up may not have been trying to do that, but the wording is all that and only that. The tone totally and completely unencyclopedic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• Delete Sales pitch notwithstanding, this article should be deleted simply because it has inadequate sourcing to meet notability for WP: GNG. The likely motivation definitely doesn’t help it’s case though. NiklausGerard (talk) 04:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

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.