Talk:Steve Rubel

Untitled
Boththe high rankiong of the blog, and the fact that this gentleman is involved in the talking-up of Walmart in the blogosphere, connote enough importance to warrant inclusion. At least take it to AfD if you insist on pursuing deletion. SailorfromNH 01:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The article was in fact nominated for deletion (successfully), but has been recreated a couple of times. To hopefully avoid going back and forth any more over this, I've written a little more and provided some references. --Michael Snow 05:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Rubel was "not personally involved" in the Wal-Mart thing according to the article. So in my mind, this qualifies for deletion. Even if he WAS involved it'd be iffy. You can't say he warrants an article just because he may or may not have been tied to one somewhat newsworthy incident. If he does qualify, how many million other executives do as well? I personally don't want to know about every single person down to this level of detail, and I don't think Wikipedia is intended for that. --Shyland 00:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As this article was voted for deletion, it should be deleted, "writing a little more" and adding references does not merit not deleting it, it still does not even come close to wp:bio basic criteria DuckeJ (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Date
I actually moved to Edelman in February 2006 if someone wants to fix. 68.194.113.58 15:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)steve


 * Quite so, I believe I must have mixed up the dates from the two BusinessWeek stories. My apologies. --Michael Snow 00:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

speedy declined
speedy declined by reviewing admin. Not the same as version deleted at AfD, much fuller, so G4 re-creation does not apply. Asserts notability and has refs, so not speedy nor A7, non-notability. I do not know if it will pass AfD, but i think it would need to go back there. If deleted there, it can be protected against re-creation. DGG (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)