Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Milstein

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. Black Kite (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Milstein

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

Non-notable person. Claim that his company was on the Inc. magazine list of top 500 companies is cited to an interview given my Milstein, but cannot be verified by a search of Inc.'s site. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Weak keep on notability but needs some cleanup. His is in the Detroit Business Journal as being recognized on the "30 in their Thirties" list HERE and also an author (I did not weigh how notable the book is) which can be viewed HERE. The claim about the Inc. Magazine would not matter if it was listed on the company of the website as he is the founder and CEO of the company (which means he can self-publish anything so his interview would be as credible as the website stating such - a link to the actual recognition would be nice which I have been unable to locate as of yet).
Weak Keep The article does need some major improvement, but I think his notability is established... Barely. Rotorcowboy ^talk
_contribs 18:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - local 30 in their 30s recognition does not rise to a level of notability for a global encyclopedia. Claims about success or lack thereof of the company have nothing to do with whether he should have his own article. Arguments that he can self-publish anything he wants as CEO and we'd have to accept it as credible shows a fundamental lack of understanding about how Wikipedia works. DreamGuy (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as two of the sources in the article are from apparently notable publications and thus this limps across the verifiability and notability thresholds. I have performed some cleanup but expansion and better sourcing would improve my !vote from "weak" to a full keep. - Dravecky (talk) 06:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ANYBIO and WP:AUTHOR - First off, interviews are primary sources (review WP:SOURCES) but these two interviews don't even meet significant coverage considering one is from the Homes section of a local online newspaper and the other is a trade magazine for realtors.--Joshuaism (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I can't imagine many readers flocking to this page for useful information about this guy, and there doesn't seem to be any information here that a quick Google search of his name doesn't reveal, so the usefulness of having an article dedicated to him seems questionable. On the other hand, as a published author and CEO of a probably notable company, he is likely to do more notable things through the course of his career which should be added here. Plus, it's not like Wikipedia is running out of room or something, right? If some more experienced AfD voter can explain why that's not the right way to rationalize a keep, I'd certainly consider changing my vote. Zujua (talk) 08:30, 7 July 2012 (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.