Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick C. Kulow

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. Sandstein 06:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick C. Kulow

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Biography that is more or less an obituary. The subject's significance lies mainly in his victory over the U.S. Food and Drug Administration concerning the ability to sell essential fatty acids. While this is important I'm not sure that it is sufficient to warrant a stand-alone article. There is nothing else distinctive about him and while I can see numerous passing mentions of him I don't see anything substantial. Mccapra (talk) 11:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no meaningful coverage past obituaries. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 12:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the current state of the article is rather skimpy, the very high likelihood is that there is substantial coverage of this individual and his business activities in offline news and other print sources. A textbook example of a case where WP:BEFORE should be rigorously applied. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I looked for reliable independent sources but did not find them. If you do, please add them. Mccapra (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, or maybe Keep - my first inclination was Keep as he seems to be a significant figure in the health food industry, introducing many products that later became industry standards and for making the FDA change its stance on food additives and dietary supplements - but I couldn't find any coverage other than obituaries - however some of those obituaries do cover his career, such as this one, reprinted from Natural Foods Merchandiser - if the obits can be taken as confirmation of his notability, then Keep, otherwise I suppose it is Delete due to lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - I am leaning towards Keep, but lack of sources indicates a Delete - Epinoia (talk) 02:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not all obits in the newspaper are unpaid for staff written obits. It’s difficult to judge the quality of the source within the article without a url link. No other sources I’be found are significant as they are all tangential to Mr. Kurlow. Fails WP:SIGCOV in either case. Even if this obit is one good source, Wikipedia requires multiple sources to verify notability. The subject does not pass WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 11:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of passing mentions and entries in book, but only [1] (mentioned by Epinoia) comes up as a WP:SIGCOV. Therefore, Fredreick doesn't meet WP:BASIC which requires "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". The Big Bad Wolfowitz's argument falls flat per WP:NRV and WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, as we need to have evidence that the subject received significant coverage. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2019 (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.