Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard N. Cabela


 * 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.  (non-admin closure).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Richard N. Cabela

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Mhomolka (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)I am the SEO Manager for Cabelas's and have been notified by our social media group that there is information surrounding the death of our founder. We have seen editors such as: Carbone15, Scalhotrod that have put that he "committed suicide" which is 100% false and disrespectful. We would like to have the page removed completely as this is not good for the family who just lost a loved one less than 6 months ago.Mhomolka (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment This discussion page was originally created with just the text above, with no template and no transclusion to a daily log page, so it never got any traffic. The creation of this page and a few edits to the page itself are the above user's only edits to date.  The transclusion to the August 12 log marks its first proper listing.  I'm completing the AfD nomination as a courtesy, but the article looks like an obvious keep to me.   -- Finngall   talk  00:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - lots of coverage, clearly notable. AdventurousMe (talk) 02:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 04:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (rap)  @ 16:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. He is clearly notable given the multiple coverage in reliable sources including such gold standard indicia of notability as a New York Times news obituary. The nomination doesn't make any compelling argument for overriding these findings; any unsourced or incorrect information and any vandalism of the article can be (and has been) dealt with in the usual way. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as plenty of coverage – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  03:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I can see significant coverage in third party reliable sources. The reasons provided by the nominator are vague.  Jim Carter (from public cyber)  08:21, 27 August 2014 (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.