Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theo Botha


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Theo Botha

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

I almost CSD'd this - article fails WP:GNG and is either a bio by someone very close to the subject or WP:AUTOBIO. Tagged as non-notable for almost 2 years. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 10:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Question. Could the nominator please explain how the references and external links in the article are insufficient to demonstrate notability? And yes, I realise that many of them are dead links, so you don't need to tell me that. Please concentrate on those that are live. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as he seems to be notable in his field with several 3rd party mentions and interviews conducted with widely read publications. Handschuh-talk to me 03:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

(1) In balance, the article is trivial, with no substantial information other than the subject's existence. He is merely one of many shareholder activists that every public company, especially major corporations, are faced with. With no clear programme, no considerable track record and no measurable success, the subject may belong in the occasional blog, but does not merit to be taken up in Wikipedia. (2) The article does not meet the general notability guideline. (3) The article was clearly written either by the subject himself or by someone close to him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.35.72.198 (talk) 09:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This article should be deleted for the following reasons:
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: Relisted to allow a further analysis of the sources. The sole "keep" comment has not pointed out specific sources that establish notability, while the "delete" comments have not analyzed the live links as requested by Phil Bridger. Cunard (talk) 07:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I've revived some dead links and (up to a point) improved the citations to help clarify any issues of RS compliance. I must say, looking at some of the articles: there are several that are basically about the guy, and the others seem to quote him every few paragraphs.  I haven't hit all the links yet, but so far it seems he's well within WP:GNG, even if there might be WP:AUTOBIO violation here. He's also mentioned a couple times as a shareholder activist, in a book on executive pay .  In short, I believe this is just a case of a messy, neglected (and, if WP:AUTOBIO vio, somewhat self-serving) biography that's nevertheless about someone reasonably notable. Yakushima (talk) 11:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as the reliable sources provided seem to (just about) constitute significant coverage. Needs some work, but seemingly meets WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep has conclusively established through a rewrite that Theo Botha is notable. Marvelous work on an article that looked like this. Cunard (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, not really much of a rewrite. It needs a lot of work as an article, certainly.  But the inline citations are all to RS, with live links and publisher info. Yakushima (talk) 08:42, 1 December 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.