Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Solgaard (2nd nomination)

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Solgaard

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

Renominating after the page popped up in my watchlist when Rayman60 left a talk page message. The previous AfD in 2016 was closed as NC because of quorum (though I think it could have been closed as delete within discretion); the issue has not gone away, raising a large amount of money on Kickstarter is no grounds for notability. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I mistakenly CSD'd it but I think it's an open and shut case of fails GNG and associated projects don't confer notability. Shameless promotion from a SPA. The only issue last nom was a counter argument from our SPA and lack of quorom as mentioned by Tigraan. Rayman60 (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inventing something is not an automatic free pass over our notability standards for businesspeople in and of itself, but the sourcing here is not adequate to get him over WP:GNG in lieu — the references are all either his own self-published primary sources about himself, or glancing namechecks of his existence in sources that aren't about him. And even some, although admittedly not all, of the glancing namechecks are in blogs rather than reliable sources, to boot. There might, maybe, be enough coverage to support articles about his products, but there isn't the kind of sourcing we require to properly support a biography of him. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found one RS and added it, but it's not enough.104.163.148.25 (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is subpar, and not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:09, 13 February 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.