Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Paddock

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. ✗plicit 14:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Paddock

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Promo UPE linkedin muck. scope_creep^Talk 12:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and South Africa. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nominator uses some colourful language to characterise this article's nature, but it is essentially what we have here. Sourcing is problematic, notability is by no means evident. Gentleman exited a startup. They do it every day. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - this is fluff. Promotionally-toned article from an editor who writes a lot of promotionally-toned articles - David Gerard (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable business person, lack of any sort of RS coverage [1] is typical. Oaktree b (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2023 (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.