Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel P. Myers


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 23:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Daniel P. Myers

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Poorly-sourced (passing mentions, trade mags regurgitating press releases, etc.) vanity piece on a non-notable business exec, fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Carlyle Group per WP:ATD-R. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Some citations are clearly PR news releases and written by the subject. Also never ran a company though he worked for some big conglomerates.Miaminsurance (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per nom. Citations show that he is a businessman of stature. He has helped run multiple multi-billionaire companies. The links show his involvement and interviews. Being VP, running boards, and his involvement in the international business world clearly show his involvement.Getlostwithlindsay (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Just to explain, nobody is questioning whether this person has held executive roles; I'm sure he has, but that doesn't make him exceptional or noteworthy. And in any case, the point isn't whether the subject is 'important', but whether there is sufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish notability (see WP:N). The sources cited here fall far short of what's required. Hope that helps. (PS: And don't say 'per nom' when you're arguing against the nomination; it's confusing.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A bit more discussion about a possible redirect might be helpful. I have a bit of trouble seeing how, given the title of the page, that would be particularly useful? Conversation does appear to be moving towards some form of deletion, though.
 * Comment Against nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getlostwithlindsay (talk • contribs) 17:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Go  Phightins  !  10:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete and oppose redirect. Fails WP:SIGCOV. I fail to see the benefit of a redirect in this case, as the individual could easily redirect to other companies in his employment history. With multiple possible redirect targets, a straight deletion with no redirect is preferable.4meter4 (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete and oppose redirect nothing in terms of coverage outside of churnalism. I agree with 4meter4 that leaving no redirect is the best option. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2021 (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.