Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. J. Rapp

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 keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 00:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C. J. Rapp

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete -- article about non-notable individual, clearly written as a bio by subject or proxy. Quis separabit? 17:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and references. Meatsgains (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If he is indeed the founder of the company Wet Planet Beverages, as the article states without a reference, it is probably worth merging and redirecting there instead of deleting. Deli nk (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wet Planet Beverages per Deli nk. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 22:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect perhaps as we can consider this for now instead of deleting until it's necessary, but it seems certain there's nothing for a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - My initial reaction was redirect, but after searching I found this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. I think it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The guy is notable. The article just needs work, especially with regards to its sources, many of which were just thrown on at the end of the reflist, which leads to a "mucking fess" IMHO. (Can I say 'mucking'?). I found another one for the article subject, added it as an inline reference and tried to work on the stack of loose cites at the bottom. Not much headway there, but be that as it may, the article meets WP:GNG. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:21, 22 January 2016 (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.