Deletion of Bob Wingo

Comment: Taking the sources alone, we can judge notability based on the standards set by . Sources have to be ''reliable'', ''independent'', and ''significant'';  notes that notability is not inherited. Working for a notable company, having notable clients, being part of the board of notable organisations - none of this confers notability.  Passing mentions in stories about others doesn't indicate notability either - that's why GNG requires coverage be ''significant''.  Coverage of the ''company'' may imply that ''it'' is notable; it does not imply that someone who works there, even the founder, is. All we're left with that's significant coverage, is ''El Paso City Magazine'' and ''El Paso Times''.  The ''City Magaine'' "story" is cringeworthy promotional nonsense; it's not remotely independent reliable journalism.  So we're left with the ''El Paso Times'' story. A single story in a low circulation local newspaper is far far too little. But worse - the author of the ''El Paso Times'' article identifies himself, on his own Twitter feed, as being "Director of Policy & Programs" for the Greater El Paso Chamber of Commerce - the same organisation of which the article says Wingo is a director. So I believe there is ''no'' independent, substantial coverage in reliable sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: While I can see some reasons for minimal notability beyond El Paso, my strong impulse is to '''uke|nuke''' for blatant puffery. This stuff should never rewarded
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)