Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivian Reddy


 * 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. SarahStierch (talk) 05:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Vivian Reddy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Written like an advertisement, no WP:RS Cyan Gardevoir  (used EDIT!) 22:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 23:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 23:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep links actually show several Reliable Sources. Yes, it is written like an advertisement - so it should be rewritten, not deleted. -Drdisque (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - the previous comment is correct: this does have quite a few sources which means it qualifies under the criteria. However, it is poorly written and unbalanced.  Is there another sign that can be placed on this page, asking for further revision (once it's kept)?  Hairy poker monster (talk) 10:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Successful businessperson and philanthropist, but does not meet WP:BIO. The only independent source in the article appears to be this one; all the others are links to his website. I don't know about the other awards, but the inclusion of the "Rotary International Paul Harris Award" gives the list a strong smell of resumé padding; this "award" is basically purchased by the recipient, or his club, by making a specified donation to the Rotary International Foundation. IMO the problem is not with the way the article is written; it is with the notability of the subject. --MelanieN (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 10:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that the links to his website are reprints of articles from other original sources with the original sources shown. -Drdisque (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 04:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

 Etc. etc. There are more sources that go deeper into his links with Zuma. This demonstrates significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Hence keep and rewrite, since the article's poorly put together. --Batard0 (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a notable person and has no real, credible references.  LogicalCreator (talk) 06:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: I can't see where this falls short of the WP:GNG. There is coverage:
 * In the Independent in September
 * In the Witness in February
 * In the Mail & Guardian in 2009
 * Again in the Mail & Guardian in 2009
 * Keep and clean up. Significant coverage by secondary sources. (Mail & Guardian, The Witness, The Independent) Most of the coverage isn't flattering, but it does demonstrate that the subject is notable. The subject does meet the general notability guideline.-- xanchester  (t)  09:41, 25 October 2012 (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.