Håvar Bauck: Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP - There seems to be more than enough references that are reliable and the notability criteria is met with significant, non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of each other to keep a posting about Håvar Bauck . I think that the page certainly is within the realm of the spirit of Wikipedia.  Felixgfive ( talk ) 10:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So this user claims a COI, but doesn't say with who, has just started their account, and has simply copied the notability language.  Drmies ( talk ) 19:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Subject easily passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV .  Article is clearly written in WP:NPOV .  He is also a recognized voice of the travel industry in Kenya.  Does the nominator consider major sources like Nation Media, Capital Business or BusinessDay ( WP:NGRS ) not reliable because they are African?  ANairobian ( talk ) 09:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Techcrunch is an obviously reputable and reliable source.  Skift and Phocuswire (by Northstar Travel Group ) are reliable international travel publications.  Daily Nation and Business Day are two of the most reputable newspapers in Kenya and Nigeria respectively.  Capital Business is also widely recognized as a reliable Kenyan business news source.  Ventureburn (by Memeburn ) is a major Pan-African entrepreneurship news source.  197.254.70.206 ( talk ) 09:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting due to concerns of canvassing.  One account was registered after this AfD had begun, the other account is also only about two weeks old, and the third is an IP editor.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Nobody asked me to write or vote here.  I'm a new editor, but I've been observing and learning for a while.  I came across the AfD in WP:KE and recognized the name because I've read about him, read several of his articles, and also seen him speaking at conferences.  Definitely notable in my opinion.   I personally don't think the article reads like an advertisement, but since at least two editors disagree, I took the liberty to make some small edits, toning down the language a bit and moving some supporting references immediately next to the parts about "first in Africa".   Hope that does it!  ANairobian ( talk ) 19:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment appears to have been WP:REFBOMBED with churnalism, press releases, self-published works and interviews.  Does not appear to have any reliable sourcing .   Can those seeking to keep this provide two reliable sources?  Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 10:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm expecting that this gets relisted again to be honest.  I have similar concerns to you.  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Most of these sources used are in reputable publications, which should be fairly easy to verify, e.g several news stories in Finansavisen , a leading Norwegian business daily ( Article 1 , Article 2 ); Techcrunch ( Article ); Ventureburn ( Article 1 , Article 2 ); Capital Business ( Article ); Business Day ( Article ); Phocuswire ( Article );   The Exchange ( Article 1 , Article 2 ) 185.128.9.106 ( talk ) 05:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Source 1 is fine and a RS, the rest are iffy.  I'm not sure we're at notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Too many promo sources, hardly any in RS.  A Gsearch brings up the usual social media, venture funding PR items, not much in Gnews.  I can't find enough SIGCOV that isn't PROMO.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep few articles found notable but more to the company and as founder I find this one notable Norway article which is pretty much reliable, other 2 that discusses the founders can be generally accepted as secondary source, since company that he’s founded and of CEO has article over years.  HarshalDhotre06 ( talk ) 13:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Make a policy based argument.  It doesn't matter whether the company has an article or not, as notability is not inherited.  WP:NINI Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk ) 11:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for NINI I didn’t know about it yet.  I’mm gonna make my comment in an hour based on NINI.  HarshalDhotre06 ( talk ) 12:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] While WP:NINI is an important policy, WP:AUTHOR and WP:ENT also state that artists and authors may derive notability from notable works.   Wikipedia lacks elaborate notability policies for entrepreneurship, but it would  make sense that people who have built notable companies (being a founder is much more than a mere association with a business) should derive some notability from their work.  196.207.188.98 ( talk ) 12:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 05:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep The editor did an amazing job writing the article with respect to neutrality, but one of the sources in particular concerns.  This one [19] .  Pretty strange!  For a journalistic sit down interview, I would have expected a question and answer, with the questions on the article like this [20] .  However, the article seems like it was written by the subject himself and handed to the publisher for printing.  The article was evidently not written by the journalist profiled (hence the subject's use of single person throughout), and no sign of the journalist's input other than the brief intro.  Tamsier ( talk ) 03:51, 27 April 2024 (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: keep