Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bruce Cundiff
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Vanity, no indication of notability. The original poster of the article might like to read Wikipedia:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies. --Ianb 16:26, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Opinions by analysts at such places as Jupiter Research impact millions of dollars in private and public corporate spending. Also: WP policy on fame, importance and notability - Davodd 17:20, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
- Tentative delete. There is nothing here that would not either be mentioned in any citation of him in an article or instantly available by googling his name. If he stands out from thousands of other similar analysts, there is nothing in the article to say so. If expanded to something encyclopedic within the five days (e.g. some remarkable views he holds, somewhere he has been seen to have influence), I'll change my mind.-- Jmabel 18:33, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: no evidence of notability, probably vanity. The people who run the show at Jupiter Research may be notable. The drudges laboring in the trenches aren't. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:16, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Evidence of notability: [1] Davodd 23:30, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
- Insufficient. Two hits; neither story is about Cundiff; he's quoted toward the bottom of the either article. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:31, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Your notability logic does not agree with: Wikipedia:Fame_and_importance#Policy - Davodd 03:51, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Importance is irrelevant, as it's only a proposal. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Your notability logic does not agree with: Wikipedia:Fame_and_importance#Policy - Davodd 03:51, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Insufficient. Two hits; neither story is about Cundiff; he's quoted toward the bottom of the either article. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:31, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Evidence of notability: [1] Davodd 23:30, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - vanity - not notable (heck, I get two google hits) - Tεxτurε 23:23, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
