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 as now meets GNG & AUTHOR thanks to Tomwsulcer. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Downey[edit]

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

The article survived a speedy upon creation, but still is suspicious. The sources are scarce and basically confirm newspapers sometimes quote him. Nothing more, nothing less. The fact that article creator Happydaysyes (talk · contribs) afterwards spammed numerous other articles gives this a fishy smell (single-purpose account?). bender235 (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I do not think that if an article is created by an WP:SPA but has been edited by many people and does not resemble the original article,[1] that this is a grounds for deletion. It does look like it was a WP:SPA but we do not know that for sure, and I do not think that even that is a grounds for deletion according to WP:DEL-REASON. If you try to Google Morgan Downey, it is hard to look through the results, because of another person with the same name who has gone into a lot of publicity for himself. It seems that his article, Richard Morgan Downey which is linked from this article and which has no sources and which content was created entirely by two seeming SPAs MorDowney (talk · contribs) and MorgDowney (talk · contribs) would be a better candidate to nominate instead of this one, so I am not sure I see why this one, which does have some sources, was nominated and that one was not. KickThe (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although the article was in bad shape, with references not conforming to Wikipedia standards, but these problems have hopefully been fixed as per WP:HEYMANN. Clearly he's a top notch financial player, head of an information service for investors, an acknowledged authority on the oil industry since he was quoted here and here and here and here and here. There is in-depth focus on him when appointed CEO here and another one here. He moderated an industry panel here. Plus his Oil 101 book was well-received, a bestseller, positively reviewed here, he got a rave review here, another positive review here. Clearly he meets the WP:GNG for multiple, independent, nontrivial reviews, possibly passes WP:AUTHOR as well.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NOTE and WP:CS. Not too excited about the format though.--Deletapedia (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2014 (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.