Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Rutherford Davidson


 * 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 redirect to Standard Life Aberdeen. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Rutherford Davidson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lacks WP:GNG, the ref describes the success of the company itself CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete no sourcing that actually covers Davidson, plus all references only point to one source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect While all info comes from one source, that source was written using archival records held by the company, which include information on Davidson. Could this be redirected to the existing page for the company (The Standard Life Assurance Company (1825-2017)), rather than deleted? --MountainWaves (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NEXIST, WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. The nomination is flawed because WP:SIGCOV states that the subject "does not need to be the main topic of the source material." and so the source about Standard Life is fine.  It is easy to find more sources covering the subject such as this detailed obituary or this general history. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect Suggest redirect to Standard Life Aberdeen. Dormskirk (talk) 08:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete this one of several articles created by a recently joined apparently single-purpose account. WP:SIGCOV also says "multiple sources are generally expected", and the single source here closely resembles company-sponsored "history of our company" puff books, and thus does not constitute independent coverage. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NEXIST states that "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." Other sources have been identified in this discussion. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:22, 3 July 2020 (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.