at the moment the substance of the article all appears to come from ogrecave com and gibberish com neither of which is particularly notable further it's circular for the article to say john smith head of xyz com is famous for proof check his bio on xyz com where it says that he's famous that kind of thing runs afoul of autobiography guidelines in order for someone to have a claim of being prominent they need to have other people refer to them that way the wikipedia page needs to supply links to book magazine and newspaper articles which verify descriptions such as sugarbaker's prominence or the podcast being popular for more info check wikipedia verifiability as it is there are so few references on the article it's actually in danger of being nominated for deletion but general practice is to give a new article some time to breathe to see if additional references can be added