Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ContentBridge
not sure if I get a vote) I am the paid editor of ContentBridge, my disclosure is on the talk page.  An assumption has been made that I am getting paid for this time which is not the case. First, it appears that at this point that there is consensus on the removal of the personnel details to a bare list, despite my contention that the officer's outside commercial interests may be relevant to the reader.  As for notability some of the sources listed above are self-sourced but go to the personnel section , my understanding is that these entries need not be notable (only article and lists) and the references are provided as a convenience to the reader.  ('m sure that we are all well aware that the Reference sections are not indexed so there's no other reason include these references.) What I can't understand is how the following list of sources can be belittled towards claims of notability. And the references (provided below) clearly exceed  and 
— NONE, NONE
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NNC||WP:ORGIN||WP:OBTOP||WP:OBSCURE (Wikipedia:Notability)