Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curtis Loftis

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. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Loftis

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

Fails WP:BIO. Questionable notability and very limited sources online. While a number of news items mention or quote the man, there is little reliable commentary or bio information available, only that published by the man himself. Founding a charity or being a senior bureaucrat in state government do not, in and of themselves, qualify one for Wikipedia. --Whoosit (talk) 11:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - High ranking public servant and founder of a minor (in global terms) charity but I don't think that's enough for notability. One article ref is 3rd party - his appointment by the Lieutenant Governor [1] - but that's not enough, there must be many tens of thousands of public servants worldwide who get their appointments mentioned in press releases. Plus the page is created/maintained by a WP:SPA with an apparent COI, making the page too self-serving to be useful. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been updated, does anyone want to check if it adheres to the standards better? --ForrrestMaster (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The rewrite has not addressed the notability issues for me. Kevin (talk) 05:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of independent references, I'd say this is over the notability bar with ease. Simonm223 (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just stumbled across this page through random article. This source, in my opinion, establishes sufficient notability for the article to exist. --Edge3 (talk) 04:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is listed as #85 on a list of influential powerbrokers, getting 2 sentences on a web site that claims to be "unfair and imbalanced" [2]. To me, that does not show notability. Kevin (talk) 04:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

News sources should be able to assert notability as well. --Edge3 (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Significant coverage from independent sources does not exist. The news sources address a few different people of the same name and none of them address the subject of this article in any depth. Location (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. [3][4]--Edge3 (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Questionable notability. As outlined above, there's no substantial coverage of the subject in secondary sources. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:39, 22 October 2009 (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.