Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Kiyosaki

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 speedy keep. XFD discussions is not cleanup, but still can be improved.

(non-admin closure) KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 21:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Robert Kiyosaki

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

Article subject is a person who appears to be notable, not just for one book, but for multiple books and business ventures. Was made into a redirect as complaints about NPOV -- but those concerns should be addressed instead on the article talk page, and with fixing the article. Notable biography. Sagecandor (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable per Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Sagecandor (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sagecandor If you think it should be kept why did you nominate it for deletion? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Best way for community to assess notability, especially after prior page history. Sagecandor (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable,
Deletion is not cleanup -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

speedy keep. Highly notable. Article should be improved, not stubbed down into a redirect.Icewhiz (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep With over 100 citations, there should be no question of notability. Editors pushing to do a redirect appear to violate
POV themselves. Peaceray (talk) 20:04, 13 June 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.