Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Lesser

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 speedy delete. Already deleted by RHaworth (talk · contribs) as G12 (blatant copyright infringement). ~ mazca ^talk 17:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Lesser[edit]

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

No WP:RS to establish notability for a businessman and/or per WP:GNG. Appears to be a WP:PROMO. Qworty (talk) 01:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please say in common words so that other Wikipedian can contribute. Thank you. New worl (talk) 02:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Qworty claims that the article lacks reliable sources (WP:RS) to establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines (WP:GNG) and that the article seems to be overly promotional (WP:PROMO). WP:RS and WP:GNG are absolute requirements for all articles on Wikipedia. Dricherby (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dricherby. I have added another source for the article. Please tell me if it meets WP:RS now. Regarding WP:GNG, I am not sure how the article could be labeled so. Best, New worl (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 02:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Does not pass Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. The addition of another source did not change this. --Crunch (talk) 23:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete -- per WP:G12. Entire article is a copy-paste from this source. I have tagged it for deletion. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 14:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does refer to that page - however, the information on the page is factual in nature, and does not express an opinion. It is rather peculiar that an article about a CEO of a major international firm is not considered notable enough, especially considering the same firm's ex-CEO was considered a notable enough topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariaDraganova (talk • contribs) 05:37, 10 June 2013 (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.