Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Heller


 * 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Keith Heller

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Little-known individual. Little-to-no chance of expansion Nordic   Dragon  07:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn, article appears to have been improved substantially since nom. Nordic   Dragon  06:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Dragon  07:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Dragon  07:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Dragon  07:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Dragon  07:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Dragon  07:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * A chairman of a transportation company certainly can get over our inclusion rules for businesspeople if he can be properly sourced over WP:GNG — but he is not automatically entitled to keep an article just because he exists, if all you can add for referencing is a single news article in which he's quoted as a provider of soundbite but which isn't substantively about him. I'm willing to revisit this if the article can be expanded with significantly more sourcing and substance than is present here, but in this state it's a Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Update: I see that the article has been significantly expanded, so I did a review of the new sources provided — and while the volume of the new citations looks impressive on the surface, the substance and quality of them is still pretty lacking. I'm still seeing almost entirely primary sources (the self-published financial reports of companies and/or organizations that he's directly involved with), unreliable ones (Canadian Railway Observations), and glancing namechecks of his existence in media coverage that isn't substantively about him. Source #9 and source #16 look like they might be better than the rest, as he seems to get directly named in the headline — but two decent sources aren't enough to get a person over WP:GNG by themselves if they're the only decent sources in the article, and since they're both text-only links I can't even verify whether they're actually better sources than the namechecks and primaries are. So, unfortunately, the new work hasn't changed my mind. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment; I've added a few more sentences + cites, and collected a load more from searching to work through. He appears to have been involved in other businesses too, beyond EWS/Canadian National; and currently appears to remain as chairman of the UK Coal Employee Benefits Trust.  I'll have another look tomorrow and see what else can be added usefully.  —Sladen (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - - Unfortunately withdrawing means nothing as there's 2 delete !votes present, You can only withdraw if there's keeps, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 10:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete instead and then Draft if needed as I examined the article but am still questionable about solidity here, and thus is best deleted and perhaps restored if ever needed later until there's something else substantially convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  04:42, 20 July 2016 (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.