Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evan Carmichael

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. – Joe (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Carmichael

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

The subject only has trivial mentions in the sources. Nothing major to prove he's notable. Article is also promotional due to the nature of sources. FiendYT ★ 06:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, referencing appears sufficient to establish notability, particularly those that include Mr. Carmichael as a highly-ranked speaker. PK T(alk) 17:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a BLP that lacks reliable sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail; a nn businessperson and speaker. Being one of "100 Great Leadership Speakers for Your Next Conference" is an insufficient claim of significance. Wikipedia is not a speaker's bureau to help people book their next gig. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to my research meets the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above, usual spam. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 07:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Keep arguments would be more convincing if they explained how/showed their research. Being quoted, brief mentions etc is not nearly enough for NBIO/GNG. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:00, 15 December 2017 (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.