Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter de Beer


 * 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. The lack of notability for this subject is agreed by most folks in the discussion (and for good reason), so the real issue is merge vs. delete. Upon consideration of the content in the article, merging to WhyteGold seems dubious because virtually nothing in this article is relevant to the company, except the fact of his association with it, which is already in the company's article. RL0919 (talk) 05:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Peter de Beer

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The subject does not appear to meet the general notability guidelines. Two of the provided sources are dead links, and the third says he filed a lawsuit; merely filing a lawsuit does not make one notable. A quick search on Google revealed no reliable sources which mention this person. –Grondemar 04:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The dead links weren't dead. They were formatted incorrectly. I fixed the formatting. The references do not seem to be sufficient. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge into WhyteGold. Ref 1 is not notable - he doesn't inherit notability from his ancestors. Ref 2 is about WhyteGold, and de Beer isn't even mentioned in that Wikipedia article - perhaps he should be? Ref 3 is filing the lawsuit, which is not notable.
 * Can't delete and merge. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Would be grateful if you could explain why not? -- Boing!   said Zebedee  03:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:MAD  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 04:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. BusinessWeek Magazine is a noteable source. All information verified by news sources listed on Google News, Reuters etc. Keep article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garfieldesque (talk • contribs) 20:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look at the BusinessWeek website entry (not even an article per se), all it says is that Peter De Beer is a director. It doesn't even list his age where the other corporate officer's ages are listed.  The mention seems trivial to me. –Grondemar 20:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * His partial ownership of Whytegold mentioned in BusinessWeek is further verified and cross referenced by other sources. Age is not releavant as his ownership is easily verifiable in a Google search. Filing a criminal lawsuit against a national newspaper is different to merely filing a lawsuit against an individual, although more sources may be required to justify this being significant enough to be considered as noteable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garfieldesque (talk • contribs) 21:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Redirect to WhyteGold. Fails WP:GNG but likely a legitimate search term. His closest claims to fame are filing a lawsuit - but the lawsuit doesn't appear to provide significant coverage of him - and owning the business (he's now mentioned in that article). VernoWhitney (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability doesn't even seem to be claimed. I'm always ready to reconsider new arguments or facts, but at the moment I don't see nothing. PanchoS (talk) 11:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per PanchoS. Nothing notable about this person. In fact Google search returns more information about OTHER people named Peter de Beer than it does about this individual. --MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2010 (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.