Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Blumenthal

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 keep. A Train^talk 13:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Blumenthal

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

~~Relevant? nope. IAWI (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)~~This account is a sock. Hhkohh (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Rationale??? --Quek157 (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blumenthal is a non-notable businessman. We need to show more than just that such people exist, and the article only demonstates existence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable per RS and WP:BASIC. Activity of nominator a bit erratic; how can someone attain autoconfirm status such that they're nominating for deletion and publishing new entries within an hour of account creation? Pegnawl (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes gng. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:Basic. Entry and RS demonstrate notability above and beyond mere existence. BelBivDov (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes the GNG Chetsford (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2018 (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.