Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Taylor (executive)

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 delete. J04n(talk page) 00:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Taylor (executive)

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

A couple of business awards and a big-paying job, no doubt, but I don't see a reason to assume this person passes WP:GNG. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone brings forth significant coverage of this person as an individual in independent, reliable sources. Increased scrutiny of any claims to be a "thought leader " is recommended as that's about as significant as having a passle of Twitter followers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article includes enough WP:RS to justify WP:N based on WP:GNG. WP:COI and WP:POV tags are not relevant for a WP:N consideration, which is the purpose of this page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you looked at the actual references? There are two items, as far as I can tell, that qualify as secondary sources. This is one, a video on Bloomberg of a panel that includes our subject. This, from Businessweek, looks like another reliable thing, but it's really nothing but an "executive profile"--nothing but a fancy version of LinkedIn. In other words, there is no coverage of anything, there's just primary material. Drmies (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 5 March 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 01:08, 12 March 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, Keeper | 76 14:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The weak section "accolades" indicates why he isn't yet notable. "... Under 40" is usually an euphemism for "awards for people not yet notable" The references are mentions, and I am reluctant to consider anything on the WEF site as a RS for anything. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 25 March 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.