Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lindsay rosenwald

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 February 9.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Cirt (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay rosenwald[edit]

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

Blatant self-promotion. More a CV loaded with peacock terms than a bio. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is indeed shamelessly promotional. If the individual does meet WP:BIO (and I'm not sure he does), the article would need a complete rewrite anyway. Peacock (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia isn't the place to post your résumé. Nyttend (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Peacock. RFerreira (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten the article to be more neutral and added some references. Please check if this makes more sense now. Thank you. J.D. (talk) 12:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and is still spammy. The references that have been added are not sufficient - one is a self reference from his own company and the other just to FINRA's home page. There does not appear to be the required "significant coverage in reliable sources". ukexpat (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* I've done a small research and added several references that I believe are trusted and independent resources. Would appreciate your thoughts. If I add articles on the companies owned by Dr. Rrosenwald and link them to the person, would this be a good idea to make the article even more valuable? Thank you. J.D. (talk) 19:37, 8 February 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.