Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chad Kolton


 * 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   keep. -Scottywong | spill the beans _ 16:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Chad Kolton
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I feel that this article does not meet the criteria of WP:PERSON. Sources are weak and only mention him in passing, even though there are multiple secondary sources. Author has removed WP:PROD. Toasty (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment This article is barely two hours old, and I am continuing to add sources to meet WP:BASIC. I removed the PROD because it made no sense. -- Kendrick7talk 19:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see how you are going to establish notability for this person, a quick Google search of his name and HDMK give maybe 2 articles that you can use. One result is his Linkedin, and one result is this Wikipedia article. The other two mention him in passing and I don't think that they are enough to establish notability, he hasn't done anything. Toasty (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Just about scrapes past GNG, in my view. I don't think he's only "mentioned in passing" - most of the sources in the article devote a couple of sentences to a mini-biography. And the guideline says: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". I think the brief mentions in the sources given amount to significant coverage. DoctorKubla (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 02:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets notability guidelines and has his name currently in the news at multiple high-profile sources.   Belch fire - TALK  03:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Passes WP:BASIC. Let's not delete this, let's expand it. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 08:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes notability and there are additional sources out there that haven't been exploited.   Belch fire - TALK  08:45, 23 August 2012 (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.