Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan S. Wolfson


 * 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  10:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Jonathan S. Wolfson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete: as purely promotional. Founded one business which filed for bankruptcy. Tone indicates the article was almost certainly written by subject or an associate. Quis separabit? 19:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 02:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 02:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ! dave  18:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- As a businessman, fails WP:GNG. Forbes award not distinguishing. As an academic, fails WP:GNG. Rhadow (talk) 19:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable businessman. The article on his company reads suspiciously like an advertisement as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources:, , , . WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY claim by nom is unsubstantiated. WP:PROMOTIONAL are not blatant and can be addressed through editing and don't required deletion of the entire article. ~Kvng (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom and specifically per 's point. Promotional garbage aside, no sources that I can find meet any criteria. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  23:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- WP:TOOSOON and the subject is not independently notable of his company. It gets some coverage, but not the subject indepedently. The other sources are likewise unsuitable; Mercury News is an interview, for example. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:25, 1 January 2018 (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.