Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaz M Grooms

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. Geschichte (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chaz M Grooms

[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)

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. ... discospinster _talk 23:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 23:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 23:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 23:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - zero indication of how the subject approaches any notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this autobiography without indication of importance per WP:A7. Alternately, delete because the subject, a dude with a job, has received no coverage in WP:RS and does not pass WP:GNG. FalconK (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - paid-for spam, see [1]. MER-C 15:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - He has no coverage and does not pass WP:GNG. - Tatupiplu'^talk 18:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has coverage 24.23.107.111 (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't remotely approach meeting WP:GNG; just a regular guy working at a not particularly notable business. PohranicniStraze (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the mass proliferation of C[anyletter]Os, such as CTOs (chief technology officers), CEOs (cheif executive officers), COOs (chief operation officers), CGOs (chief geneological officers), CIOs (chief information officers), CFOs (chief financial officers), CBROs (chief bathroom officers), and on and on, having a title in this form is no where near a sign of notability, especially when the company itself is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2021 (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.