Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stewart Rahr


 * 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. No arguments for deletion remain except for one. However, saying that an article is poorly written should be avoided, as it is a surmountable problem. — GorillaWarfare talk 06:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Stewart Rahr

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A vanity article which appears to have been created by the subject's PR agency. Relies entirely on a brief Forbes "richest people" profile. Excerpt: ''Rahr's life is a true American rags to riches fairy tale come true story. Rahr started his career in his Dad's single pharmacy with just 4 employees and revenues of less than $1 million. Today Rahr's behemoth Kinray has 1500 employees and revenues in excess of $5 billion.'' Mosmof (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - I hate this article with a passion, bragging BS about an ultra-wealthy entrepreneur, but cracking the Forbes list of the world's richest pretty much seals the notability deal, does it not? LINK. Carrite (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He's on the list, but he's in the 300s, so I wasn't sure. He gets plenty of Google hits, but they tend to be fluff, who's-who type stuff and beneficiaries of his philanthropy. If the article is kept, I'd be happy to purge and throw up a stub. --Mosmof (talk) 00:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: probably notable, buts needs total rewrite. Delete as spam otherwise. Hairhorn (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep Take another look; I just did the rewrite and cleaned out most of the peacockery, irrelevant name-dropping, etc. It seems well enough sourced (Wall Street Journal, Newsday) to establish notability. --MelanieN (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Changing to Delete. After I cleaned up and neutralized the article, the Special purpose account who created it came back and filled it full of fluff and peacockery again. It is clear that this article cannot be saved as long as User:Rosemarylora remains determined to turn it into a puff piece. Pity, because the guy might be notable if the article was allowed to remain encyclopedic in tone. --MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Changing back to Keep but watch. The changes by the SPA editor have been reverted back to a neutral article (thank you, Mosmof), and the editor posted this note on my talk page:
 * MelanieN- I apologize for deleting your changes. I did not realize that there are many administrators reverting my changes. I will no longer make changes to the article. Please advise... I now understand after reading the posts.--Rosemarylora (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I do think Mr. Rarh qualifies as notable, and I hated the idea of deleting any article due to style/editing problems, so I am back in the Keep column. --MelanieN (talk) 02:59, 18 August 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.