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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Edmeades[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

PROD previously removed. There has been years of significant undisclosed COI editing surrounding this person (most recently this deceptive edit). Subject does not appear to meet notability criteria - references are mostly unreliable, i.e. self-published, blogs, or garbage like this. Lacks coverable in a breadth of reliable secondary sources. A puff piece, contrary to our policies on what Wikipedia is not. Citobun (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even one of the sources is truly viable. The article is also written in a strange manner, as if someone wanted to be blatant about COI. The Humanitarian Works section is especially guilty of this. It's got a fairly unencyclopedic tale which is sourced to a blog post by the person himself. I tried searching for sources myself but they were mostly just sideline mentions, nothing of great note. The most viable one I found was this Estonian article. Running it through Google translate, it says it's from an economic leadership columnist and it has the columnist describing Edmeades' guideline to success. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sock of SpecialFXavier. Mike V • Talk 15:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While fully half of the sources are questionable, once can hardly suggest that references from Variety, CNN, the Marin Independent Journal are not viable. It is clear that Edmeades is notable but also that this article has some issues. It also appears, on the talk page, that this issue has been asked and answered before. The article needs cleanup but Edmeades is notable. Let's not delete a useful article because of some overzealous contributions. Edmeades was both the CEO of a major visual effects company and the founder of a military simulation company that won awards from US Congress and the US Army. Paleomaan (talk) 01:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC) — Paleomaan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] I had a hard time sorting through the sources but those are viable. I'll give it the benefit of doubt if the article is heavily cleaned. Currently it's still fairly unencyclopedic with content like that one you removed. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, there was (and still is) some junk in there. I cleaned up and removed some more tonight. Paleomaan (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC) — Paleomaan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] Comment: Yes, this is a pretty much single-use account. I lost my old account details and, recently, when doing some reseach on Dr Cordain (The Paleo Diet) I bumped into an interview that Cordain and Edmeades did. When I looked him up here I saw the deletion nomination and started editing. Like my previous efforts as a contributor, my interest was piqued by this particular subject. While I do not doubt some contributers with COI, I do not have any conflict of interest other than my personal interest in the subject. To my mind, Edmeades is notable and the article simply needs clean up. There are mainstream media references, secondary media interviews and in depth coverage and references in published books. The issue here, as far as I can tell, is not one of notability but of the quality of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleomaan (talk • contribs) 01:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC) — Paleomaan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Confirmed sock of SpecialFXavier. Mike V • Talk 15:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While fully half of the sources are questionable, once can hardly suggest that references from Variety, CNN, the Marin Independent Journal are not viable. It is clear that Edmeades is notable but also that this article has some issues. It also appears, on the talk page, that this issue has been asked and answered before. The article needs cleanup but Edmeades is notable. Let's not delete a useful article because of some overzealous contributions. Edmeades was both the CEO of a major visual effects company and the founder of a military simulation company that won awards from US Congress and the US Army. Paleomaan (talk) 01:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC) — Paleomaan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I had a hard time sorting through the sources but those are viable. I'll give it the benefit of doubt if the article is heavily cleaned. Currently it's still fairly unencyclopedic with content like that one you removed. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, there was (and still is) some junk in there. I cleaned up and removed some more tonight. Paleomaan (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC) — Paleomaan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment: Yes, this is a pretty much single-use account. I lost my old account details and, recently, when doing some reseach on Dr Cordain (The Paleo Diet) I bumped into an interview that Cordain and Edmeades did. When I looked him up here I saw the deletion nomination and started editing. Like my previous efforts as a contributor, my interest was piqued by this particular subject. While I do not doubt some contributers with COI, I do not have any conflict of interest other than my personal interest in the subject. To my mind, Edmeades is notable and the article simply needs clean up. There are mainstream media references, secondary media interviews and in depth coverage and references in published books. The issue here, as far as I can tell, is not one of notability but of the quality of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleomaan (talk • contribs) 01:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC) — Paleomaan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep This may be my fault. I am not a regular editor and while I am a fan, I have no close ties to the subject. (Disclosure: I have seen him speak at business conferences and met briefly at one, not that he would remember.) I will jump back in and try to clean up. Many of the bad sources might be my doing. Also, there was an early edtior (E2Sue or something) that I think worked for Edmeades at one stage but I don't think she has edited the page in years. SpecialFXavier (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC) — SpecialFXavier (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: The first two "keep" votes above come from two single-purpose accounts with probable conflict of interest. SpecialFXavier's short editing history includes persistently adding disparaging content against Ray Duncan and David Duncan (vintner), two men that Eric Edmeades has apparently accused of fraud. These two single-purpose accounts follow a long list of other single-purpose accounts that serve only to promote Eric Edmeades and his interests on Wikipedia:

81.132.177.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
142.166.81.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
E2 Sue (talk · contribs)
86.138.145.204 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
88.107.30.83 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
202.176.200.163 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
202.169.246.71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
203.118.59.237 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
216.232.47.103 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - removed notability and article tags, added content about Kerner (Edmeade's company) on other pages
196.38.228.123 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - deleted past PROD and notability tags
206.47.36.67 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - removed notability tags
61.8.120.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
76.232.8.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - adding links to his personal website, Facebook page, adding promotional content
209.133.123.226 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
76.251.106.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
76.234.121.167 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
76.252.223.203 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
76.252.223.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - added ridiculous "quotations" and also started WikiQuote page for Edmeades
206.176.237.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
65.255.49.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
65.255.53.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
64.134.231.164 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - damage control in response to Kerner having filed for bankruptcy protection
24.84.209.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
Vinterchuck (talk · contribs) - more damage control, and some disparaging remarks about one of Edmeades' foes
Peterchasefx (talk · contribs) - has added multiple photos of Edmeades, suggesting some kind of COI. Has also removed, PROD, notability, and COI tags on multiple occasions and participated in talk page discussions without declaring any conflict of interest.
142.166.81.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - using deceptive edit summary to re-add Edmeade's name to a list of alumni

Over the years various people have challenged the notability of this subject as well as the article's neutrality. But an anonymous IP or single-purpose account always seems to show up promptly to remove PROD and maintenance tags. Hence I seriously suspect a case of paid editing and/or undeclared conflict of interest. User:Paleomaan, contrary to your claim that Edmeades is "clearly notable" I am still not seeing significant, in-depth coverage in a multitude of reliable secondary sources.

Lastly: the photo of Edmeades on this page comes from the official website of Kerner, further suggesting undeclared COI for promotional purposes. Citobun (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated elsewhere, the issues here are about editing and sources. User:Citobun, you have said that there are only glancing references to Edmeades in the press when a cursory search turns up several articles about Edmeades (mostly related to his role at Kerner Optical) in Variety_(magazine), and additional articles by CNN, Forbes, the Sunday Times and a variety of publications in a number of European newspapers and magazines. The article has more poor sources than good ones but there are plenty of good ones. This is a strong case to clean up the article and not to delete it. Paleomaan (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC) — Paleomaan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Paleomaan (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of SpecialFXavier (talk • contribs). [reply]

I replied in detail below. These articles do not constitute significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources as required by Wikipedia policy. This article has existed for nearly a decade, has had hundreds of edits by single-purpose accounts and still the notability criteria have not been met. Citobun (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This being one of my first few edits , i'll only make couple of points: First, the article has a huge overall scope for improvement ,specially the pics. There is no doubt about that.Second is the all important point of notability. Withstanding the first point of average overall quality of the article in question, the only fact that Mr Edmeades is actually linked with the Kerner Group which has been renowned in the fields of visual effects,modelling etc over a long period of time, has had past association with George Lucas' company ILM( Industrial Light & Magic) makes him notable enough to have a small basic article to exist.

Any little search can easily prove his association with the Kerner Group which is unquestionable. The importance of companies like Kerner Optical, Kforce etc make Mr Edmeades notable enough for the article to exist. I have seen many credible sources to prove his asscociation with the Kerner Group, few being :

* http://variety.com/2011/film/news/kerner-optical-shutters-amid-bankruptcy-1118042318/

* http://www.cgw.com/Press-Center/Web-Exclusives/2010/The-Kerner-Group-Focuses-on-3D-Production.aspx

Having said that ,i have no first hand information to comment on the facts relating to bankrupcy filing,his relationships,disputes with some people etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.234.212.172 (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC) — 117.234.212.172 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

These two sources are just passing mentions of Edmeades within the context of Kerner Optical. They are not in-depth nor do they meet the other criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability (people). I don't doubt that Kerner is notable but I am still not seeing significant in-depth coverage of Edmeades himself in reliable, independent secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, I included information about the Kerner Optical bankruptcy because the Duncan's were burying it. I have been around the visual effects industry long enough ( long before Edmeades ) to value the contribution that Kerner Optical made to the industry and to be annoyed at Duncan's killing off of the business and, worse, his burying of that fact at every turn. It happened. It is notable. And is father was involved, as noted in the sources I listed. That a user named 'family friend' undid my edits does not make them true and should not have an impact on my contributions here, even if they were somewhat misguided. If you don't like some of the content on this page, delete it or modify the article. The notability issue is not in question but may have been obscured by overzealous references to invalid sources (some of which may have been mind). I am working on it. I found, for instance, two references today of Edmeades appearing as a subject of discussion in published books, one in 2010 (which internally references an article about him in the Sunday Times) and one in 2015. I included them on the page.

I agree about the photo. Funny enough, I posted about that in the TALK page asking for help with uploading something different. SpecialFXavier (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC) — SpecialFXavier (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment There seems to be permanent COI editing on this article and has been like that for 9 years now ever since the creation, and the COI tag keeps getting removed. It was again removed, but I returned it and added a reason of never removing it because the page has had COI issues for years and years and the COI tag, again, keeps getting removed. Also added the not-a-ballot template here. Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and where these tags have been added the answer should have been to correct the COI entries, not through the baby out with the bathwater. Paleomaan (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC) — Paleomaan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Paleomaan (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of SpecialFXavier (talk • contribs). [reply]

Delete non-notable businessman and speaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, a gsearch brings up no useable book reviews, WorldCat shows no library holdings[1].Coolabahapple (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- But a gsearch does bring up at least two references to Edmeades' being discussed in published business books. Paleomaan (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC) — Paleomaan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Paleomaan (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of SpecialFXavier (talk • contribs). [reply]

Link? Citobun (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sock of SpecialFXavier. Citobun (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article needs work. There is no question about that. Many of the sources are less than reliable (and many of those have already been removed. Let us remember that WP:NOTABLE states that "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." Further, the instructions on nominating an article are quite clear: 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, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately. The subject, while not incredibly well known, is relatively well known. While Google hits don't, on their own, matter, a quoted search of "Eric Edmeades" provides well over 10,000 results. He has been covered in major news stories in Variety, CNN, The Sunday Times and Fortune and has countless interviews and stories about him in less well-known publications like the Marin Independant Journal and a variety of business magazines around Europe that are no less important for being published in other languages. Yes, COI tags have been added and deleted in the past but the COI issues have either not been addressed or only been addressed softly when a wholesale effort should be made to make the article more encyclopedic. Edmeades is notable. The article needs fixing. (Also, and I imagine that this is not relevant, but the original nominator seems to do a great deal of editing about Halifax which I believe is Edmeades' home town which makes me, in turn, wonder about COI.) Paleomaan (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC) — Paleomaan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] The notability is not "unclear" – it is clear that the subject does not meet notability criteria because nobody has demonstrated significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Let's look at the articles you alluded to: Variety article - a passing mention of Edmeades in the context of his company CNN piece - mentions Edmeades in the context of Kerner. Not particularly significant (i.e. detailed) coverage and certainly not a "major news story" – a "top ten" style social media piece. The Sunday Times – I can't find this. Can you provide a link please? Fortune - also can't find this. You state "Edmeades is notable" with confidence – then where is the detailed coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources? Regarding your accusation at the end: I have no COI in this case. This article came to my attention because of this edit, which added Edmeades' name to an alumni list under a deceptive edit summary. I have never heard of Edmeades outside the context of Wikipedia. Citobun (talk) 08:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sock of SpecialFXavier. Citobun (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article needs work. There is no question about that. Many of the sources are less than reliable (and many of those have already been removed. Let us remember that WP:NOTABLE states that "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." Further, the instructions on nominating an article are quite clear: 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, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately. The subject, while not incredibly well known, is relatively well known. While Google hits don't, on their own, matter, a quoted search of "Eric Edmeades" provides well over 10,000 results. He has been covered in major news stories in Variety, CNN, The Sunday Times and Fortune and has countless interviews and stories about him in less well-known publications like the Marin Independant Journal and a variety of business magazines around Europe that are no less important for being published in other languages. Yes, COI tags have been added and deleted in the past but the COI issues have either not been addressed or only been addressed softly when a wholesale effort should be made to make the article more encyclopedic. Edmeades is notable. The article needs fixing. (Also, and I imagine that this is not relevant, but the original nominator seems to do a great deal of editing about Halifax which I believe is Edmeades' home town which makes me, in turn, wonder about COI.) Paleomaan (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC) — Paleomaan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The notability is not "unclear" – it is clear that the subject does not meet notability criteria because nobody has demonstrated significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Let's look at the articles you alluded to:

Variety article - a passing mention of Edmeades in the context of his company

CNN piece - mentions Edmeades in the context of Kerner. Not particularly significant (i.e. detailed) coverage and certainly not a "major news story" – a "top ten" style social media piece.

The Sunday Times – I can't find this. Can you provide a link please?

Fortune - also can't find this.

You state "Edmeades is notable" with confidence – then where is the detailed coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources?

Regarding your accusation at the end: I have no COI in this case. This article came to my attention because of this edit, which added Edmeades' name to an alumni list under a deceptive edit summary. I have never heard of Edmeades outside the context of Wikipedia. Citobun (talk) 08:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep according to Bristol Post "...Eric is one of the most effective business mentors in the world."1 I think that makes it notable enough. The article mentions he was also nominated for Entrepreneur of the Year, well I cited that term. The article needs few reliable sources, I've added couple of them. Article should be given a chance for cleanup. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT a reliable source, it is an event listing written by the group that hired Edmeades to speak! It was not written by Bristol Post. The article has been given plenty of chances for cleanup over the past decade – and still there is no in-depth coverage in a breadth of reliable secondary sources, as required by Wikipedia policy. Citobun (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the article that was originally made by Bristol Post. Like I said the article needs additional reliable references..they exist somewhere out there for someone to find and add. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What article by Bristol Post? Where is that? The link you posted was written by YESBristol, a group that hired Edmeades to speak. If these reliable sources exist, add them!

User:Umais Bin Sajjad, I see you have engaged in paid editing work (although you have placed a speedy deletion tag on the only page with a record of that). Do you have any COI in this case? You also added as references an obvious Wikipedia mirror and a short bio seemingly written by Edmeades himself, or one of his staffers. These are not reliable sources.

Guys, this is getting absurd. If this guy is really notable – as so many sockpuppets have insisted over the past decade – then someone should be able to demonstrate significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with my paid work. I started and recently closed. I've reached here having Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Businesspeople in my watchlist. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the basis for your "Keep" vote? Citobun (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These: [2][3] [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umais Bin Sajjad (talk • contribs)

The first is about his company and only mentions him in passing. The second is CNN iReports, which is user-contributed content, and it literally says so on the page you linked. The third appears to actually be someone using him for business acumen, so might be useful - David Gerard (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I just did a quick reference check. Everything about Edmeades himself is puffed up, per the blatantly promotional tone of the piece. The various Kerner enterprises may or may not be notable, but I'm utterly unconvinced about Edmeades himself. In the event this is kept, it'll need to be culled to about the size of a stub - David Gerard (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing or finding independent, reliable sources showing his notability, and most of the article has little to do with Edmeades himself. Meters (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then Redirect to Kerner Optical, where he was chairman - There's a very weak argument for notability, but even if it were just enough, the promotion, socking, and likely paid editing makes it a WP:TNT. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Kerner Optical. Outside of his involvement with that, the rest of this looks like puffery. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 11:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and redirect to Kerner Optical. While a legitimate claim of notability, and the reliable sourcing necessary to support it properly, might be possible here, all the COI socking makes it virtually impossible to properly sort out what's valid content and what's PR puffery. Entirely too much of the sourcing here right now is parked on primary sources, press releases, YouTube videos and glancing namechecks of his existence in media coverage that isn't about him — and that's not how any person, regardless of their notability claim or lack thereof, gets to source or keep a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Holy smokes are there a lot of questionable edits here at at AFD for this "serial entrepreneur" and "philanthropist" -- so much so that if these accounts were affiliated with the subject or his PR firm, they would be a rather poor reflection on him, no? Anyway, that hypothetical thought experiment aside, Gnews simply does not have the level of coverage that would make a separate bio article deserved. Be very interested to see if this needs to be SALTed, too, if deleted here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I wasn't able to find much of anything either. Also per Shawn, consider salting with prejudice if not redirected. TimothyJosephWood 18:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Improve & Keep There seems to be a lot of to and fro motion as regards to this article. Although the earnestness of the article writers is questionable as is the quality of the article, this does not take away anything from the fact that the article in its inherent nature deserves to exist. The detractors have not supported any attempt to clean or improve the article. Mine just got snubbed right away( i would happily accept few of the edit rejections if individually explained. Instead the whole edit was white washed twice).This proves that either there are only fans or only enemies out here . Nobody is taking a balanced view.

Few days ago, i came across an Afd article for a lizard claimed to be an internet celebrity ! That afd btw was surprisingly tilted heavily in favour of the "keep" votes with notability being granted in view of the uniqueness . Compared to that case , notabilty should not be a great issue here. Bonafide association with the kerner group( as i had tried to cite with a Bloomberg citation in my edit) as its head, is easily sufficient.Also Gsearching i found , there are sevearal examples of appearances at public speaking events of reasonable repute which just have not been mentioned at all in the article. Also 'build school campaign' and scaling mt kiliminjaro 5 times (if properly referenced to) is a notable achievment for me. The 'delete' seekers must instead contribute towards enhancing the quality of the article( even though they are not obliged to do so) rather completely discarding it. As a worst case i would even vote for it to exist as a stub rather than an article with references to kerner group and few others, and then improve it further. I woluld look for a leaner but cleaner article which has full possibility to exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-centric (talk • contribs) 20:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your case might be more credible if you actually linked or named the specific other AFD discussion you're talking about — because there are all kinds of contextual reasons why that situation may not actually be the way you described it. For instance, if the "keep" votes were all coming from WP:SPA users with no grounding in policy, and the "delete" votes were coming from established users who actually understood and cited policy, then it could be closed as a "delete" consensus regardless of the raw "vote" total for either option. Or, alternatively, it's entirely possible that the other article cites better sourcing than this one does, or that you're completely misrepresenting the base notability claim. Without knowing what specific discussion you're talking about, however, we have no way to determine whether the situations are actually comparable or not. Also, read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Bearcat (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2016 (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.