Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Schofield

:{{la|Robert Schofield}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Schofield Stats])

:({{Find sources|Robert Schofield}})

I am ambivalent though leaning towards a delete on this one. Subject was a corporate CEO, but does not seem to meet notability standards as per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Thin secondary sources coverage was found on a Google search which does not seem to be in depth or significant. Maybe I'm being too hard nosed. What do you think? Ad Orientem (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep The article's only source looks reliable and the article can still be expanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citrusbowler (talk • contribs) 21:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

:*Reply I am still not seeing much notability here. Wikipedia articles are not kept around on the hope that WP:N will be established later on. But I am open to being shown a stronger case for notability if I missed something. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment he's not in Who's Who or Debrett's People of Today, which would establish notability, but inclusion in those sources is not exclusive so he may not have an entry yet still be notable. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep, per the references to profiles in two of the UK's foremost serious national newspapers that I've just added to the article, and the common sense that says that the chief executive of the UK's largest food manufacturer[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/the-business-on-robert-schofield-chief-executive-premier-foods-2193409.html] is obviously a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

: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.