Deletion of Thomas Parkinson (entrepreneur)

Comment: Most Sources show the topic is notable to great extent.  is established here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Significant coverage is found in the sources used. This scales through  et al
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per FOARP. If there was just one more source where Thomas Parkinson was the main subject and not his company I would be inclined to vote keep. As it stands, it just barely does not meeting the threshold of the sourcing requirements at 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: OK, let's get this over with: the first two Chicago Business refs are basically only about the company Peapod with no apparent  of the the subject of the article. The last one is a profile of Andrew and Thomas Parkinson, that just barely gets over the line for .  The Private Label Retailer piece is a summary of a video of an interview and thus not sufficiently independent/not a secondary source. The Digital Commerce 360 piece is largely verbatim quotes from a speech given by Thomas Parkinson, and thus does not sustain notability for the same reason as the Private Label Retailer piece. Conclusion: only one piece of potential  cited, and that's not enough to sustain notability. —&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:SIGCOV||WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: I did my research properly before writing this page. I discovered, the topic passes the notability guidelines as stated in  and . I found significant featuring of the topic in most of the references used. A few of them that caught my attention include
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:GNG)

Comment: References on page feature the guy in accordance with  as already opined above
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)