Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Foxcroft

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Wikipedia%3AXFDcloser%2FSoft_deletion_refund_preload&preloadparams%5b%5d={{urlencode:Ron Foxcroft}}&preloadparams%5b%5d={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Foxcroft}}&editintro=Wikipedia%3AXFDcloser%2FSoft_deletion_refund_intro&preloadtitle={{urlencode:Ron Foxcroft}}§ion=new&title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_undeletion&create=Request request undeletion of these articles]. ✗plicit 13:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

=[[:Ron Foxcroft]]=

:{{la|1=Ron Foxcroft}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Ron Foxcroft}})

:{{la|1=Fox 40}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Fox 40}})

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a businessman and an article about his company, not properly sourced as passing our inclusion criteria for businesspeople or companies. They're basically lashed together into a self-fulfilling notability loop (i.e. Foxcroft's only real notability claim is that he's CEO of the company, while the company's only real notability claim is that Foxcroft is its CEO), but neither companies nor their CEOs get automatic inclusion freebies just for existing, and instead must be shown to pass WP:GNG and/or WP:CORPDEPTH on their sourceability. But neither of these articles shows any such thing, and instead they're both referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all — and even on a ProQuest search for older sourcing that wouldn't Google, the Burlington-Hamilton local media market is virtually the only place I'm finding any substantive coverage of him: as soon as I constrain the search results to knock out anything from the Hamilton Spectator and the Burlington Post, I'm reduced to glancing namechecks of Foxcroft's existence as a giver of soundbite in coverage of other things rather than any substantive coverage that would pass CORPDEPTH's requirement for more than just local sourcing.
And for added bonus, the company's article has been flagged as "written like an advertisement" for almost a full decade without ever being toned down all that much — and while Foxcroft's only been tagged for sourcing problems for about a year, that was mainly a case of the page flying under the radar, because its sourcing has been bad every bit as long as the company's sourcing has. Bearcat (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Ontario. Bearcat (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Article has zero third-party sources, only two primary sources (one of which doesn't even seem to mention Ron Foxcroft in any capacity). The article's got a lot of claims to all these awards, but nothing backing them up. - Aoidh (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2022 (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.