Martin Rafferty: Most of the entries are just passing mentions/announcements about the organization he heads.  The two awards are fairly obscure, and trying to access the Gates Foundation source brings up a security warning.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 07:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Oregon .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The Bill Gates Foundation article can be accessed in Archive.org here and mentions him 5 times.  Daily Emerald mentions him 4 times.  KLCC mentions him 3 times.  KVALL mentions him 14 times.  BTW, I found several other articles in Google news that mention him.  Hence these are not all passing mentions, so he meets WP:GNG and WP:NBASIC.  Hkkingg ( talk ) 06:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply .  Other than the Gates Foundation, the rest are passing mentions in articles about the organization he founded.  The KVAL article is the best of the lot, but that is only coverage by a local TV station about the organization and the "mentions" are mostly things he says and claims.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 23:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I support keeping it as there is enough news coverage to meet notability.  Pershkoviski ( talk ) 20:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Courcelles ( talk ) 13:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Out of all the currently cited sources, only source 9 constitutes significant coverage, with the rest being trivial mentions or lists as recipients of some minor awards.  The sole article by Clackamas Review isn't really enough to support the entire article.  Searches of the name "Martin Rafferty" yields more results about an Irish businessman than the American activist.  Fails WP:GNG .  Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 03:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, North America 1000 08:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : compatriots, I submit this humble plea.  Let us not disregard the 9th source.  A veritable testament to Mr. Rafferty's public significance, it combines with preceding citations to form a robust mosaic of notability.  Assembled together, they satisfy our stringent guidelines.  To cast this article into oblivion would be a transgression against truth and a slight to the purpose of our noble enterprise.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 09:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move : BLP, Fails GNG and BIO.  These refs [23] , [24] do have brief info about the subject but not enough to satisfy SIGCOV.  The remaining refs are about the org, Youth ERA , which would pass N. BEFORE showed refs about the org, but nothing SIGCOV about the subject.  Move the article to Youth ERA and change it into an article about the org with a section and redirect about the subject.  // Timothy :: talk 04:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  09:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Off topic discussion @ CycloneYoris Did you notice that the relisting was already done twice?  WP:RELIST states that you need to have a real good reason to relist a 3rd time and explain your reasoning.  Given that you seem to be an experienced editor, I am guessing that you had not noticed it, so you should make a decision on the outcome and close this.  Here is what the policy says " in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice. Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation either within the {{ relist }} template, or in addition to it, on why they did not consider the debate sufficient. " Hkkingg ( talk ) 06:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Hkkingg : Yes, I'm well aware that this was the third relist, and it is usually done when a consensus is far from established (as is the case with this discussion) so there's absolutely no harm in relisting for a third time.  CycloneYoris talk!  07:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok, but yet you did not follow instructions to disclose your reasoning.  Typically when there is no consensus after 2 relists, the page is kept.  Hkkingg ( talk ) 07:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's normally no need to add a reasoning if there is an obvious lack of consensus, and that I can say based on my own experience.  So please calm down, I know what I'm doing.  Relisting for a third time isn't as unusual as you seem to be implying.  CycloneYoris talk!  08:33, 30 May 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus