Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jo Webber


 * 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.  Sandstein  19:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Jo Webber

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Looks like a vanity page. Has clear COI and SPA issues. Poor article in general (just an extended resume painting subject in positive light), does not seem to me to be notable enough to justify an article. No significant coverage in respectable outlets. Rayman60 (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as my searches clearly found nothing convincingly better aside from some news notices and republished news notices at Highbeam (only 1) and browsers (a few). Simply nothing for a better article yet, SwisterTwister   talk  06:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * weak Keep. CEO of one notable company, Innerphase, and one probably notable one, Virtual Piggy.  DGG ( talk ) 09:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Becoming a CEO makes you accomplished, not necessarily notable. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from reliable, secondary sources to show they pass WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:56, 7 December 2015 (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.