Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Meek


 * 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. OK. I'm calling deletion. Granted, we've no way of knowing if the person requesting deletion is the subject or not (and ). That would be a matter for OTRS. And, even if identity were established, we don't delete on the subject's request. However, User:Esydor, who is the only real content contributor to this article, has requested deletion, so that makes this a WP:CSD G7 (or at least reasonably within my admin discretion to call as such). Given the possible real world concerns, the borderline notability, and the fact this is a BLP, I think deletion is a reasonable conclusion. I'm not quite "ignoring the rules" here, but I am interpreting them in the spirit of "do no harm". Scott Mac 14:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Chris Meek

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The subject has requested deletion on the grounds that his employer, Goldman Sachs, does not "allow" its employees to have Wikipedia articles. That is obviously not a valid reason for deletion, as a commercial organisation has no power to dictate what we choose to include in an encyclopedia, but this should be deleted anyway for lack of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subject clearly meets the general notability guidelines. That said, the article contains personal information which is either not sourced or cited to sources that do not verify content. This information should be removed. All this said, deletion is not the answer here.  Cind. amuse  12:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per GNG.  Lord Vetinari  13:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, with no prejudice to future action. Any request to delete along these lines should be made to the Wikimedia foundation. If they deem deletion appropriate, it can be deleted under CSD G9. —WFC— 13:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I should clarify from my previous comment that I doubt the community will delete under the GNG. He just about meets it in my opinion, and borderline opinions will doubtless be swayed towards keeping by the subject's request. The sooner this AfD is closed, the more latitude the foundation will have to take a G9 decision. —WFC— 14:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm finding it difficult to see how the subject passes the general notability guideline. The secondary sources in the article appear to show borderline notability of the Start Now campaign, but not of Meek himself. Could those calling for keeping please identify the required significant coverage of Meek in independent reliable sources? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Phil, unfortunately you've muddied the waters here. What you've got is someone, claiming to be the subject, asking for deletion. That person ought to have been directed to OTRS. There's not a snowball's chance that deletion at the suggestion of someone claiming to be the subjection will succeed. There is another question of notability. If this doesn't meet the GNG then it ought to be deleted whatever the subject thinks (although if it is borderline, then an authenticated request might have some influence with the closer). Can I suggest you do three things. a) Direct the claimed subject to OTRS b) Withdraw this nomination as hopeless (and only going to draw more attention to the subject) c) if you believe the article not notable, open a fresh nominaiton on that ground and let's discuss that clear of the other issues.--Scott Mac 14:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the point I have been trying to make (although I would suggest that c) is not done unless or until a) and b) have been exhausted). —WFC— 14:58, 15 June 2011 (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.