Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zach Kirkhorn

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 keep. Consensus was that existing sources was enough to satisfy WP:GNG. It would be best to add sources mentioned here to prevent another deletion nomination. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 14:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Kirkhorn[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)

Not notable; WP:NORESUMES Stonkaments (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Stonkaments (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Stonkaments (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable; there are many ~~primary~~secondary sources available. Not a resume. If this person is not notable then we can delete the vast majority of articles that are created in Wikipedia workshops about people who barely have 1-2 ~~primary~~secondary sources. --Trougnouf (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the guidelines on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion,

Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate:

For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, uncontested redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately.

--Trougnouf (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is to be based on secondary sources, not primary ones. Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article is clearly not well cited but a quick Google search of Mr. Kirkhorn finds several notable articles about him from reliable sources. To me it raises the question, which I don't know that answer to, of how do you treat a potentially notable person with a lousy cied page? Has the original author been given an opportunity to try to shore it up? Miaminsurance (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Miaminsurance: If an article can be improved by adding reliable sources, then that should be done instead of deletion. It's expected that the nominator perform due diligence and search for sources before nominating an article, and if sources exist but aren't being cited, that is not a reason to delete it. — The Earwig (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Preach on, Earwig. Totally agree.Miaminsurance (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. he is a CFO of Tesla. Now "Master of Coin". he has received significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. 1 2 3 4 --Kemalcan (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per having significant news coverage, passes WP:GNG. Pilean (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2021 (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.