Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Thomas Williams


 * 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. The page should be redirected to an article on the company if such an article is created in the future SpinningSpark 13:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

David Thomas Williams

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I do not consider a position as CEO of a small network of urgent care centers notable, and the importance of the other things mentioned is not clear either. I see no source for "Williams developed Medivac procedures used in the annual U.S. military exercise Cobra Gold". Medivac was developed long before his work, and what I think this means is that he was responsible for organizing the established procedures it for this exercise.

The references are mostly local uncritical PR for his clinics. Given the emphasis on interesting but non-encyclopedic parts of his bio, this should be in who's who, not an encyclopedia  DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I can't find anything reliable on him. The first two sources should be in HighBeam, but they are not.  To me, a lot of what is stated in this article feels made up. I am One of Many (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons stated above. Also, reference #1, used to back up many claims, is a newspaper article supposedly published in December, 2014. According to my calendar, that is four months in the future. A bit fishy. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * @User:I am One of Many @user:Cullen328 I have corrected the date for citation 1 and made the first two sources available in DropBox. Albeit they are local sources, both are reliable sources that cover the article-subject in significant depth. They can be viewed in dropbox here and here. Citation 4 is also worth looking at. I have a COI. CorporateM (Talk) 15:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Subject fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG coupled with false claims . Wikicology (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a serious claim. Do you have anything backing it up? CorporateM has already included two links to the offline sources, and would probably be able to provide the rest if necessary. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - Both of the articles linked by CorporateM are fairly in-depth profiles of the man, and if they were national publications I doubt anybody would be !voting delete. WP:N does not specify sources having to be at the national level, or state level, after all, and thus these profiles both count towards notability. That being said, the coverage I've looked at appears to be predominantly on the company itself, and thus I was wondering if having an article on that and then redirecting William's article would work better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I am with on this one. The articles mentioned seem to focus more on the company and therefore I feel that a redirect to a company would be highly in order here. However, if the article has not been written regarding the company, then this article should be deleted until such time as one can be created.--Canyouhearmenow 11:56, 6 September 2014 (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.