Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Down (3rd nomination)

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.

Steve Down

Steve Down (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)

Does not meet standards for notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.26.121 (talk) 03:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note. I created this page for the IP who was having difficulty creating a third nomination; his original attempt to nominate can be seen here. I do not express any opinion on the article at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 03:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as has significant coverage in reliable sources. Passes
  WP:GNG. Knightrises10 (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. The deletion nomination has no Wikipedia editor standing behind it. It is a waste of our time to be considering it. User:C.Fred should not have opened it for an I.P. editor who will not be accountable; C. Fred should have encouraged them to create an account or use their existing one and take responsibility. --Doncram (talk) 03:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think C.Fred is at fault here. It's rather our own rule that allows everyone to start deletion discussion even without an account. I always find it weird. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment.
  wp:BEFORE, and invest time in making argument for deletion which explains what is different now. --Doncram (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep if I hadn't voted (delete) in the last AfD I'd have closed this. No rationale for deletion provided.
  π, ν) 04:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The article needs work as currently it smacks of promotion but not fit for deletion. He clearly passes ANYBIO leading several large corporate orgs [1] –Ammarpad (talk) 06:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep scope_creep (talk) 07:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There has been ton of work completed on this article, and it should have never reached Afd. Several people including myself have gone through, and completed a fairly comprehensive copyedit and its now fit for purpose. It is a snow keep. scope_creep (talk) 07:53, 24 September 2018 (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.