Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark M. Peterson

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. Mr.Z-man 17:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark M. Peterson

This article seems to be a semi-advertisement for a chain of automotive dealerships, and it is unclear why the subject is notable. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable local businessman. JJL (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--advertisement or resume; either way, this has no place on WP. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 04:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Sourced article about a prominent business identity. A few more sources wouldn't hurt. --Gene_poole (talk) 07:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The subject is hardly "a prominent business identity" outside of Idaho. And while the article may appear to be sourced, please examine more closely: Most sources are actually links to the subject's various dealerships' websites. More third-party sources are necessary, but above all notability must be established, and thus far I don't see it. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 14:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Group 1 Automotive. The Peterson Automotive Group that this person owned was purchased by Group 1 Automotive in 2004. I'll create a section later, with references. SilkTork *^YES! 14:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC) The Peterson Automotive Group is a different company. I'll amend the article. SilkTork *^YES! 23:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC) Rename to Peterson Autoplex and rewrite - it is the company that is notable, not the person. The sources are for the company, not the man. SilkTork *^YES! 23:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Article makes a fairly strong claim of notability in terms of ownership and operation of one of Idaho's largest private companies, supported by appropriate sources. The fact that it's a poorly-written article is a wonderful reason to cleanup the article, not to delete it. I will reconsider my vote as additional sources become available, and especially if they are added to the article. Alansohn (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily meets WP:N. The usual pathological dislike of commercial organisations aside, I see no reason not to follow the usual notability standards here. Wily D 15:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As pointed out by SilkTork, the article details the company and provides sources related with the company. No source provided to establishes notability of the person or his role in the industry. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 02:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as written. I believe that SilkTork is correct that the owner is not notable in Wikipedia terms, I also think that the business almost certain is notable. I would have no objection to the article being rewritten to focus on the business, but since that article would bear little relationship to this one, deletion is appropriate - no prejudice to being recreated as an article about the company of course. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The company may be notable, but there is no evidence that its founder has received enough coverage to meet the GNG. RMHED (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2008 (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.