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. Bishonen | talk 21:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Close[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG giso6150 (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Financial Times paywall prevents me seeing the extent to which their 2012 article referenced in the article is about the man or the firm for which he works. There are a couple of industry press pieces: Business Matters 2012,HRzone 2012 which replay standard lines about employee engagement, but I am not seeing any evidence which lifts this from a standard man-with-a-job CV to indicate encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best, still not enough convincing overall for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 08:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional. He's not as important as he, or the creator of this article, think he is. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:00, 17 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.