Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Gerzof Richard


 * 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. bd2412 T 03:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

David Gerzof Richard

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

NOT a professor - can find nothing to support this. Fails WP:NACADEMIC. Just a run-of-the-mill businessman. Edwardx (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - On the other hand, he does seem to be a professor. See this. I might clean it up to remove promotional info, and when I do that, it should be good to go. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録  18:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seems to pass our general notability guidelines. Also, the article is neutral, after I removed some promotional stuff. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録  18:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Little evidence of notability. Just PR puff. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC).
 * Delete. I see nothing here that would pass WP:PROF. As for GNG, as claimed above: where are the in-depth reliably published independent sources about Richard? The WSJ one is the only one that looks sufficiently reliable and high-profile (the rest are spammy looking websites and business press release aggregators); I don't have subscription access, but the first paragraph that I can see is not promising (it is about corporate sponsorship of classes in general, not about Richard himself, even if he teaches one of those classes) and even if it were to contain enough in-depth content about Richard, it's only one. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete fails the GNG.L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  01:41, 14 August 2017 (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.