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. So Why 09:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Fox (dentist)

[edit]

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

Previously deleted as G11 and cleaned up a bit: article appears to be a commissioned work designed to promote a non-notable businessman. None of the awards are enough to get him past WP:ANYBIO, and there isn't enough sourcing to get him past the general guideline in WP:N. Should be deleted as a non-notable promotional article created in likely violation of the terms of use. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the poster. I cleaned up this article and looked through many of the references provided, then looked for references that back-up what was said, and there is not much out their. This seems like a self aggrandizing instead of actual notability. --VViking_TalkEdits 15:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~keep~~ delete - ~~I cleaned it up a bit and removed some promotional info and unsourced. The references show some notability, and the award puts it over the line, I'd say. Thus, it just barely scrapes by WP:GNG.~~ Not enough significant coverage. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- RileyBugz, which sources? Edgar Pro is just a stock ticker listing. The WSJ link is not actually an article, but a listing of a board membership that was probably taken from SEC filings (which have been removed as primary sources). The Pharmaceutical online source is a reprinted press release with a quote from him as the CEO, it wouldn't establish notability for the company, much less the BLP. The final source is just a link to the corporate website that he is no longer on. The local business journal is simply coverage of Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award, which is not a prestigious award under ANYBIO: its given to 400 people a year and has over 10,000 recipients according to our article. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he's unknown even in NYC. I don't see any reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article as it sits is pretty useless. I suspect that Dr. Fox's company, Enamelon, would be a better topic than his own biography, but I suppose id doesn't matter if the biography talks about the company as a redirect or vice versa. This seems to be a GNG pass, here is the Washington Post, via the Los Angeles Times: "New Technology Gives Teeth a Chance" (2000). Carrite (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HERE is an interview with Steven Fox on MSNBC. Carrite (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are also a large number of papers reprinting wire reports of Enamelon's 1996 IPO. Carrite (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WaPo article is just attributing facts to him: we don't typically consider that coverage of the subject. It certainly isn't substantial coverage as intended under WP:N. An interview with a subject on a TV program, even a large national one, is considered a primary source document. In this interview in particular, MSNBC is discussing the company, not him, which means that it is problematic for establishing notability on two fronts. Wire reports of the company's IPO would be coverage of the company, not its CEO. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:52, 11 August 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.