Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Meadows


 * 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. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  01:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Rob Meadows

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Obscure non-notable businessman, its foundation is defunct and is tagged with UPE flag. Fails WP:GNG. US-Verified (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep I disagree. I see that Rob Meadows was a keynote speaker at SXSW and CES which are quite notable, and I’m not sure why you are asserting that its Foundation is defunct? Instead of trying to delete these types of articles it would be more helpful to update them with the most recent information. I will help with a few updates to this one from the latest news I see. Kine Sundberg (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Being well-known is not enough. We need siginficant coverage about him which in my opinion is not there. I did a WP:BEFORE: found trivial coverage or press releases. US-Verified (talk) 09:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I have to disagree on this one. Aside from the article sourcing, in my own very quick search I did see sourcing regarding SXSW participation, a few interviews or quotes, including an semi-interview by Fast Company (https://www.fastcompany.com/90456164/silicon-valleys-hot-new-commodity-creepy-ai-powered-avatars) so while I do think the article has sourcing issues at present, I don’t think he fails the notability check for sure, I lean to preserve and improve. Jo7hs2 (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I also don’t understand the UPE flag? I created the original article after seeing him speak at an event in Stockholm and thinking that his story was really interesting. I did more research on him and collected it in an article to save others time. Kine Sundberg (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Interviews are primary sources. To prove notability, please provide WP:THREE in-depth secondary sources. Otherwise, it will be redirectly most likely to his company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by US-Verified (talk • contribs) 09:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I have done some additional research and found several recent articles and content from reputable sources that talk about the subject. I will update the article to include these. Kine Sundberg (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Coverage by WP:RS sufficiently demonstrate notability satisfying WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Furthermore, a Canadian ambassador would be considered a notable subject per relevant guidelines (specifically, GNG), and the subject appears to have a notable career. While sourcing in the article may be weak, a drive-by AfD nomination is not an appropriate way to address it. What this ultimately comes down to is whether or not the subject has WP:NOTABILITY that would warrant inclusion as an article. Clearly, the subject is notable. Deletion could be considered if the subject didn’t have a claim to notability due to absence of coverage, however, WP:GNG is met by the subject and as such deletion is not the appropriate outcome for the article. If WP:GNG weren’t met by the totality of the subject and the subject’s career, the article could be considered a valid candidate for deletion. On the other hand, however, I find that the subject’s claim to notability is strong enough to pass the threshold for inclusion in the form of a standalone article, due to the appropriate GNG conditions being satisfied. The argument for deletion just isn’t very strong here in the face of the subject’s overall demonstrated WP:NOTABILITY, and the rationale for keeping is thus stronger on its merits. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note long after the fact: this was yet another sock. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2023 (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.