Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Soubry


 * 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.  Sandstein  15:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Paul Soubry

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article on an individual telling us what a wonderful guy he is, reads like a Linkedin profile. Written by an editor who has only ever edited this article. Jolargo (talk) 05:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak delete There might be the kernel of a salvageable article in there about a notable businessperson, but with all the WP:PEACOCK in the article, especially the obviously fluffed out references section, it's hard to tell. Delete and let somebody who isn't in a COI recreate if they find something notable to base the article on. Simonm223 (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - quality of the prose notwithstanding, there are some persuasive references in there, including refs from The National Post and The Globe and Mail. The one from the Top CEO list from the National Post is a clincher for me.   PK  T (alk)  15:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

et al - "fluff" deleted (not aware descriptives could not be given; not a Wiki expert yet). Remaining content is factual and referenced - feel free to edit.  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep the sourcing is sufficient (based off access to the GDPR-blocked ones but not the registration-blocked ones), and the other issues have been reduced sufficiently to be insufficient grounds. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:48, 2 November 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.