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. J04n(talk page) 22:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heath A. Carr[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a businessman, whose strongest claim of notability is that he founded a small, non-notable company that was later acquired by a larger multinational. This does not satisfy our inclusion standards for businesspeople in and of itself, and the sourcing doesn't assist in getting him over WP:GNG: his business career is referenced entirely to primary sources like his company's own web presence and its own press releases, and the only thing here that counts as any form of reliable source coverage is a news article which mentions his name a single time at the very end as the buyer of a house, while being primarily about the sellers. So that source doesn't count toward GNG either, because he isn't its subject. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be written and sourced more substantively than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You label a $540 million sale of a private company to a public company as "small and non-notable". Others may disagree. The structural rehabilitation industry is consequential, as the water crisis in Flint Michigan and other cities in the US is going to be solved using these technologies, which prompted this entry, with more like it to come. This is a major emerging story, worthy of attention, with political ramifications coming in many states. Jsheridan33 (talk) 04:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quite aside from the fact that $540 million is actually fairly chump change as business takeovers go, that transaction is only notable for our purposes insofar as media coverage tells us it's notable. But you haven't shown any media coverage of it — and even if you can show such coverage, notability is not inherited. The present or former CEO of a company doesn't get an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia because CEO, if media coverage hasn't focused on his role as CEO. And the purported link to Flint, also unsourced to any media coverage. Reliable source coverage is the be-all and end-all of notability on Wikipedia, and nobody but nobody ever but ever gets an exemption from that for any reason. Bearcat (talk) 07:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not better satisfying the applicable notability, none of this suggests solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing any substantial sources about him. I tried the San Diego newspapers and the LA Times, since those are his local areas, but got zip, other than the house sale. The change of ownership of a company or buying a house are not notable acts. LaMona (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. I see plenty of sources regarding the company, but they only mention the person or quote him in a sentence or two at best. There's definitely enough to show notability of the company, but I'm not seeing enough to show notability of the person (WP:TOOSOON). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:38, 22 February 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.