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 revised result was Keep. No sources of sufficient independence have yet been added to demonstrate that this person meets the WP:GNG guidelines. However the original nominator has been blocked and may have had ulterior reasons for the nomination. Theirs was the only Delete opinion so I'm restoring this article and it can take it's chances....Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reno R. Rolle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Does not appear to pass WP:GNG; nothing else here that seems to show him as notable. Being involved in someone else's book appears nothing more than WP:COAT; similar issues in how the R&D100 (a non-notable award) is described. I looked for better sources and cannot find any. If this article stays, someone should remove the WP:PEACOCK stuff, eg. "which still to this day is considered the finest product of its type in the world"; in reference to his brand of beach blankets. YesMovementEtTU (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article's subject has had a critical (and WP:GNG notable) role in developing many household brands including: HSN Direct, National Lampoon, Ab Isolator and EZ Krunch (As Seen on TV), etc.. Subject and businesses also known in relevant industries. Subject consulted Kevin Trudeau to publish content over creating products leading to "Natural Cures 'They' Don't Want You to Know About" and an FTC/1st Amendment Rights controversy, which does not fit WP:COAT. R&D100 Award is a recognized 50+ year old accolade from R&D Magazine with many available references complying to WP:GNG; government institutions recognize and promote won awards^[1]. Agree with WP:PEACOCK, but more suitable for editing than deletion (which has been updated as of 7 January 2017).Designaco (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC) — Designaco (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment: Most of the sources added do not represent an understanding of WP:RS, and much of the puffery remains. I still see no reason this is not mere spam. No significant in-depth sources exist despite the cite kill effort. YesMovementEtTU (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Could you provide specific citation and puffery examples? Added references include links to actual patents and license agreements, appropriately dated WSJ and NYT articles, a detailed IMDB profile, direct links to awarding websites, and appropriately dated articles featuring quotes from the subject. Because there was no initial request for needed citations second tier sources to press releases were also included to accommodate the claims made in the creation of this nomination. Additionally, explicit puffy content was removed and assumptions of success were limited to referenced articles (ex: a Multi-Week NYT Best Seller would be considered successful to the masses, but there are books with hundreds of weeks on the list). Designaco (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:RS in order to see why many of the items you just cited are invalid. YesMovementEtTU (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Could you also expand on your belief that the article is not notable and primarily spam, so much so that it requires deletion? For example, do you have specialized knowledge in the related industries to bolster your claims of lack of notability or specific excerpts from the article that you believe serve only as spam and not qualify as a qualifying feature of a notable individual in their relevant industry? Designaco (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As the reasons for nomination have been addressed and the article amended, specifically concerning notability, I'd like to request that the article be marked as a speedy keep. Additional claims made have no referenced elements and do not qualify for article deletion; instead they can be discussed and modified on the live article and prevent having this discussion go stale. However, if you would like to include additional comments, I'd be happy to provide feedback or further edits. Designaco (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your additions were removed for containing copyright violations. No changes have been made that still remain since the nomination. And though you continue to assert that non-RS sources should make someone notable, unfortunately that just isn't true. I think you may benefit from spending some time learning about Wikipedia's rules as it appears your additions break with many of them. YesMovementEtTU (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Many changes have in fact remained, particularly the citations. Content that was removed or need better sources can continue to be discussed on the page as Wikipedia articles are living, breathing documents. As a new user, I'm sure there's a culture and set of rules I'm not fully proficient in. Fortunately, Wikipedia is also a community built resource with the primary goal to provide accurate and relevant information to those who search for it. I have no intentions of being a wiki-hobbiest, but as a web developer, I work for a number of clients that depend on their profiles and don't have the skill set or time to learn the intricacies of Wikipedia.

While I've only had a few days to learn the Wikipedia policies, I am confident that the article does not qualify for deletion. Feel free to mark as keep after the typical 7 days has gone by, otherwise I can proceed to take the additional steps to have an admin mark as keep or review the closing of the article. Designaco (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. YesMovementEtTU and Designaco, you have both commented enough on this page. I have reverted your latest comments, which have become distracting to a normal discussion of whether the article meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. Let other members of the community have their say. I can think of no reason for either of you to post here again.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2017 (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.