Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigel Travis


 * 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Nigel Travis

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Run-of-the-mill businessman, fails WP:N and WP:NOTRESUME. Reference are also run-of-the-mill corporate announcements.  P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: needs more references; see for impact when Dunkin’ Donuts and Baskin-Robbins went public; more references  and, and plenty more. Agreed that current state reads like a resume, but it seems clear to me that there is plenty more out there on Travis. = paul2520 (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 16:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 16:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 16:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 16:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per substantial independent coverage as cited above. I'm not sure the CEO of a large multinational corporation like Dunkin Donuts would be considered run of the mill. Maybe you need coffee? FloridaArmy (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Nigel Travis is the CEO of the second largest coffee chain (Starbucks is the largest) before that he was on the board of directors of two other corporations = a bit more than a "run-of-the-mill" business man. I agree perhapes you need some coffee. I will say that this article really needs improvement both in terms overall appearance and quality of the content in general.Nottoohackneyed (talk) 03:04, 12 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.