Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris O. Jackson


 * 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Chris O. Jackson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Some minor coverage. No secondary references. Nothing indepth that not been paid for.  scope_creep Talk  00:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, lots of quoting the subject as a domain expert, virtually no actual coverage of the subject himself. There's also a lot of claims in the article that cannot be verified in the sources, raising OR and COI concerns. signed,Rosguill talk 04:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is clearly a promotional piece of text, first uploaded by editor AdiyaanSK89, whose sole contribution has been a flurry of articles on persons and companies in the Indian financial-services sector, and then significantly fattened up by an IP who's only contributed to the contested article.
 * And the sources are entirely insufficient: A CNN article on "alternative investment" whose author asks around a half a dozen people, among whom is the subject; same thing in a U.S. News & World Report article; an alumnus portrait in the magazine of his California Lutheran University alma mater; a Los Angeles Business Journal fawining, sartorial portrait; and so on. I bet the article's subject will have better luck next time. -The Gnome (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2019 (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.