Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emilio B. Moure


 * 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. Kevin (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Emilio B. Moure

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

"Supreme treasurer of the Knights of Columbus" on its own doesn't seem notable enough to me. Only one source in this article, and it's from the Knights of Columbus. No third party coverage. There's one link to CNN in the external links, but it's simply part of a listing of companies, and doesn't mention Mr. Moure. Autobiography or close COI judging from the creator's username. Prod declined by IP, who also removed the COI tags.}} Hairhorn (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. No indication he meets notability guidelines.   GB fan  talk 15:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I regret going for delete, but while treasurers can be either like gold or near disasters, they are rarely 'notable'. (Unfortunately, the ones who are total disasters are more notable.) Let us hope... In the K of C, a 'Supreme' is fairly high-up (Level 3 in the pecking order below the Hierarchy and the Clergy). By the nature of the position, a treasurer should be uncontroversial and get on with the job. Mr Moure has not been in the job long enough for any decision to be made as to his disaster potential, but, as he doesn't appear to have worked in the banking business, I would think the Knights are fairly safe with him, and I wish him success (and also the Knights in their good works). Peridon (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - If I'm reading it right he's asserting notability only within the context of the Knights of Columbia - and doesn't attest to having done anything notable while in any of the posititions he's held. So despite the article being nicely written and having a good image it really doesn't meet the notability criteria. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2009 (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.