Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John R. Hunting


 * 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   no consensus. default to keep (non-admin closure)  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 00:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

John R. Hunting

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not apparently notable - not seeing significant RS coverage. The only coverage that appears to be more than a passing mention is a WP:LOCALFAME-at-best story in the home and garden section of the Free Lance-Star and a paywalled Detroit News piece about a campaign contribution he made. (It's possible that the Beldon Fund may be notable? But there's no article to redirect his name to.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment At the time it struck me that the largest political donors were notable, but I'm not sure what the rules are on business figures notability at Wikipedia.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 00:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Keep I rarely vote "keep" on BLP AfD's, but this article is very well-referenced and appears to squeak by WP:GNG. Unless I've missed something, being paywalled in no way makes a source less acceptable. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you explain which sources you believe make him notable? I don't think the paywall is an issue, there just isn't enough coverage. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 13:41, 17 August 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.