Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Mollegen

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Mollegen[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)

Notability not established with independent substantive sources. The main source, Marquis Who's Who, is established by WP:RSP as an unreliable source based on the subject's own contributions. Then cites 2, 3, and 4 are not even about him, cites 5, 6, and 8 are from his high school paper, and cite 7 is written by the subject. Reywas92^Talk 18:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 18:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Citation two features a direct quote from the subject which begins at the end of the first page of the article and continues on the second page. The Hartford Courant identifies Mollegen as the chairman of one of Connecticut's top defense contractors establishing notability by a reliable independent source. His notability is further established by the newspaper calling on him to comment on the subject of the newspaper article. Regarding citation one, the reliability of an entry in a Who's Who directory is a matter of debate. While some if not all of the information may be provided by the subject, it does not preclude the verification of that information by the publication. One's nomination for inclusion in such a directory in no way guarantees that the nomination will be accepted. Additionally, if the reliability of sources is the only issue and not the subject's achievements, the article should be tagged requesting more reliable sources and not tagged for deletion.Igbo (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Analysis and Technology, Inc. is apparently not even a notable enough company to have an article. Why in the world would its chairman be automatically notable for holding this position? There's a lot of even major corporations out there whose CEOs do not and should not have articles, and a brief quotation in the local paper does not establish notability. Who's Who is not up for debate – WP:RSP says it was already up for debate for the sixth time just five months ago and found to be generally unreliable. Reywas92^Talk 14:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears that someone is working through a genealogy of this family on WP - and few of the members meet GNG. There is virtually nothing about this person except for listings in ancestry.com. That his one sister does seem to meet GNG does not help him at all. I am sure that the professional photo here is not free of copyright. He wrote a four-sentence letter to the editor of the LA Times. Lamona (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nom, fails notability criteria. Also, while the use of ancestry.com (2 times) as a primary source is debatable it is not debatable that a primary source does not advance notability. An obituary does not advance notability, nor does the "Mollegen, Ted" source. The "Bixby, Lyn" source is about the company. A search turned up that the subject is a church officer and passing mention on

this source -- Otr500 (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2023 (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.