Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Whittall

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. Seems like the counterarguments proffered by the delete camp about the sources not actually supporting the individual's notability are on point. If folks want to repurpose it into a company article they can ask for the text at WP:REFUND Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Whittall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Not sure he passes WP:GNG. A lot of local coverage, which is expected since he is a developer but not finding the sources to show notability. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment At first I thought this article was sufficient to pass WP:GNG, but I sort of agree with the comment above. Seems like a lot of significant local coverage, but not much about the individual outside of that. Needs further scrutiny... Comatmebro (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:GNG and WP:NOTPAPER Lubbad85 (☎) 17:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No he doesn't pass GNG. You are wrong. There is no way he is notable enough to warrant an article as it is. The sources are puff pieces and routine announcements. He fails WP:GNG. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have voted. No reason for you to get WP:TENDENTIOUS The writing may be promotional however WP:NOTCLEANUP This subject easily passes WP:ANYBIO (1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. 2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.) Lubbad85 (☎) 14:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lubbad85 (☎) 17:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article reads "His projects to date have an aggregate value of more than $3 billion." I assume he'd get coverage in business publications for that achievement. At http://www.fox35orlando.com/news/local-news/possible-ancient-remains-could-halt-multi-million-dollar-homes I see them refer to him as "Famed Central Florida developer Chuck Whittall, known for projects like the Orlando Eye,". The Orlando Eye is a notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article and gets coverage, but doesn't seem to be a major landmark. Anyway, multiple independent news sources do to give him coverage for his achievements. Dream Focus 19:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete I'm not seeing coverage of Whitall, beyond the appelation that DreamFocus found which I admit is certainly important, which suggests notability. Instead it seems like his development company is what is notable - this is reflected in the article which basically just recaps developmetns he's done. Large sections of this BLP are seemingly unsourced which would also be far less of an issue if it were about the company instead. It seems to me that there's something notable to be had here but this particular formulation isn't it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
• Delete. I don't think WP:ANYBIO counts here (there's certainly not enough of a demonstrable legacy for prong 2 to demonstrate an 'enduring' record) and I don't think GNG gets covered either with regards to significant non-local coverage (the Fox article Dream linked isn't really about the subject or even the development so much as the archeological site discovered by the aforementioned.) Feels like a WP:TOOSOON case. Barkeep's suggestion is an interesting one but I haven't looked into the reliability of the company as separate. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:55, 6 May 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.