Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenn Rosewall


 * 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. Nja 247 19:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Rosewall

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

fails WP:BIO. simply being a CEO of a small business is not enough. and neither is occasional media appearances. LibStar (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —LibStar (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. No claim of notability or importance in article nor are third party references to support notability given.  The company of which he is an executive is mildly notable but that does not automatically confer notability for him.  Criteria of WP:BIO are not met. Drawn Some (talk) 02:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I hope I'm not unduly swayed by the universally promotional flavour of this piece, which reads as though someone close to his company, or a PR advisor has contributed the copy. I agree that it falls short of WP:BIO.  Murtoa (talk) 06:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment yes a single purpose editor connected with the article subject has largely worked on this article. LibStar (talk) 07:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Surely the existence of the wax statue pictured in the article should confer some notability? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, or Redirect to Ken Rosewall indefinitely, per nom. The article is so, perhaps hopelessly, subjective that even if his potential Notability were established, the article would still need to be rewritten. Synchronism (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - There must be thousands of financial professionals in Australia. Citations to the firm's own newsletters do nothing to show notability. We assume that such newsletters are quite likely to quote the chairman and mention him favorably. His on-air commentary might deserve our attention, but only if it makes an impact that is recognized by reliable published sources. EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that there are some references on the page which highlight on air commentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansonrosew (talk • contribs) 15:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - on air commentary alone does NOT confer notability. Drawn Some (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete lacks third party sources about the subject of the article and is a bit spammy. Nick-D (talk) 06:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nomintaion - no notability asserted and article is promotional. Smartse (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. While I am supportive of keeping the article on his company which is also under discussion for possible deletion, this article is full of conflicts.  The main contributors have already admitted an affiliation with the company.  I think the main issue, however remains notability and the articles presented to demonstrate 3rd party coverage are all either incidental or specifically related to his function at BBY. |►  ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 14:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

--Zip1010 (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Rosewall has all balls in his court. The Daily Telegraph
 * 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.