Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Lorsch

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 no consensus. There wasn't really enough discussion about the sources in the article to form a consensus for deletion. Any promotional language can be cleaned up through normal editing. Feel free to renominate in a few months. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Lorsch

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a recreation of the previously speed-deleted promo-bio Bob Lorsch. damiens.rf 14:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Promotional biography —Prof. Squirrel (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete:~~ Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). Article appears to contain only one secondary source, and that is a {{dead link}}. HairyWombat 21:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Keep. While the article still needs work, it is much improved. It currently contains nine references, of which seven are secondary sources. In addition, the body of the article cites the books Barbarians Led by Bill Gates, The Millionaire Zone, and The Engine of America. The guy looks notable to me. HairyWombat 19:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional. Without page citations from the books, there is no way of judging significance. Certainly the list of awards is singularly unimpressive.No bar to writing a proper article that we can judge on its merits for notability DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 04:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.