Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert Read (executive)


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Albert Read (executive)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Yep, he's the executive of a mass-media company.But, where's the independent non-trivial coverage about him.Lots of talk about his notable relatives but near nothing about him except announcenents of his appointment in industry-PR-feed(s) except the Guardian piece which covers not him but the changes at the helm of the comapny. &#x222F; WBG converse 12:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. The Guardian article is a quick announcement, with photo portraits, of the new people, subject and someone else, taking over as managing director and chairman respectively. Two other sources are about subject's father and grandfather; another source is about his wife (for whom someone has put up, in hoping, her own red inked Wikipedia article); and the rest are industry publications posting up blurbs or reporting generic corporate stuff.
 * To get something going about an executive, in terms of Wikipedia, we must have something about the person, their achievements and failures, their style, beliefs, background, effect, and so on, as evidenced by sources. We do not have this here. -The Gnome (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete A Google search doesn't turn up other sources except a Vogue article, but Vogue is owned by Conde Nast, of which he is an executive, so I don't think that qualifies as independent. The sources in the article aren't sufficient per The Gnome above. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 22:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.