Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven W. Peck (2nd nomination)


 * 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 (NAC). RMHED  19:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Steven W. Peck
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I can't find significant coverage for this person. In the last AfD (which closed as no consensus), Shoessss posted two searches that he said shows notability for both the organization and the founder. The first search shows that the organization might be notable because everything that referred to Steven W. Peck was trivial. The second search brought up only one quote from Steven. There is no article for the organization. Joe Chill (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: I found over 50 sources including this one from AP- Ret.Prof (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you look at the sources? Also, the AP link shows the notability of the organization not the founder. Joe Chill (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes Joe. You and I are at opposite ends of the spectrum when it come to our approach to Wikipedia, which is a good thing. Now it is up to other editors. Happy Editing - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The president and founder of a notable organization is generally himself notable. It can be hard to separate the two, but my guide is that people become notable for what they do.    DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep, bordering on strong. Cited GNews search shows extensive coverage of the subject's opinion on relevant issues, including citations as subject area expert. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, in agreement with DGG. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Shown clear notability, per DGG. Aiken &#9835; 13:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete I would like to say keep but there are no independent references in the article so I've gotta go with delete until it's improved. Simonm223 (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep – My humble apologies. I promised to reference and cite the piece and just plain forgot.  I have added the necessary references and in-line cited the article.  I will add more over the next couple of days.  Hope this helps. ShoesssS Talk 18:22, 19 October 2009 (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.