Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earl Leonard, Jr.


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 11:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Earl Leonard, Jr.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Run of the mill non-notable businessman. I'm sure he is a nice guy, but there's nothing inherently notable about being a senior vice president for corporate affairs for Coca-cola. No third party sources, per WP:GNG; nothing to satisfy WP:BIO. The only provided sourceis just an now-offline alumni profile. GrapedApe (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - A quick spin around the Google doesn't generate anything which would seem to count towards GNG. Carrite (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - i think he is notable. I've found some links Dishv80 (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Care to share them?--GrapedApe (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 20:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 20:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources as required by WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - if you look in the Google archives, there are tons of references, mostly behind paywall, to his time at Coke. See  and  and thanks to User:Fuhghettaboutit for his assistance in finding them at Teahouse/Questions. Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Those are all tangential mentions, failing the "Significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C ) 02:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't see anything to suggest he meets the notability guidelines.  I agree with User:GrapedApe that the references listed by User:Gtwfan52 aren't sufficient to show the level of coverage needed as evidence of notability.-- Kubigula (talk) 03:48, 8 February 2013 (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.