Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alec Hudnut

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. ChatGPT's opinion notwithstanding. asilvering (talk) 04:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Hudnut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Refs are routine WP:PRIMARY interviews. scope_creep^Talk 11:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Google turns up more interviews with and portraits of this person, yet none of them seem to be by independent or reliable sources. – Joe vom Titan (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and California. Shellwood (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It appears that the deletion nomination was initiated by the same individual who originally created the article, potentially using a different account. This could constitute sockpuppetry, which is against Wikipedia's policies (see WP:SOCK).

Regarding notability, Alec Hudnut meets the criteria outlined in WP:GNG, as evidenced by significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources:

- Interview on Bloomberg TV via PRLog - Profile in The Enterprise World - Coverage in Supermarket News - Mention in Bloomberg

These sources demonstrate that Alec Hudnut has received significant coverage in independent, reliable publications, satisfying the general notability guideline. Comment added by user:Lilybellfire67592 16:25, 28 April 2025. Sig added by scope_creep^Talk 03:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lilybellfire67592: Remmeber to sign your comments with the four tilde's. On the references you have supplied. Interviews and profile are primary and can't be used to prove notability. Passing mentions are just that. They are not indepth. Lastly I didn't write this article. I don't know where you got that from. If you cast aspersions like that, you'll get blocked very quickly. scope_creep^Talk 03:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A promotional mess. The Enterprise World profile is paid-for (the magazine describes the people they write about asour clients; same deal with CIO Business World), and the so-called "Bloomberg" interview is sponsored programming. The nom's source analysis is correct. Nothing here qualifes for WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2025 (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.