Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Millner


 * 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. Academic Challenger (talk) 08:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Robert Millner

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

NN person from Newington College who inherited the family business. Half of this stub is about his high school activities ADS54 talk 11:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  15:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 15:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Keep- He is a billionaire CEO, Google News brings up a lot of hits.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong delete This is not "cover the details of every house lived in at Newington" -pedia. Inheriting a lot of money does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. A hugely important company director of many notable companies and often covered in the financial press. Castlemate (talk) 08:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of significant coverage here (including, , , and more). Easily clears WP:GNG. (As usual, it's a pity this clear notability is not reflected in the article itself.) Frickeg (talk) 11:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lacks significant coverage and doesn't seem to qualify for a bio based on available data. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  06:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. He has passes WP:ANYBIO point 3 solidly by having biographical entry in Who's Who in Australia. It is academic reference material and peer to UK's Who's Who and Dictionary of National Biography. The WWA book is used by academics and historians and its entries are. people [who] have significantly contributed to Australian life on a national or international level. Add to the sources provided by above and the ones already in the article, he clearly passes WP:GNG also.–Ammarpad (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep – Clearly notable. Multiple significant independent sources from major news organisations over a number of years that talk specifically about the subject and are not mere trivial mentions. Kb.au (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I would remind editors that it is up to the page creator to ensure that the page is able to justify itself on a notability basis, and should be strengthening the page with sources accordingly, it isnt just up to us to do it! It brings no credit to the creator that potentially notable individuals (like this one seems to be given his positions and the coverage found) that they are even being considered for deletion.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2017 (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.