Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronald Kers

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. Nakon 19:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Kers

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

Businessman who happens to be CEO of a notable company. Nothing on google suggest e is WP:notable in his own right. noq (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. I found and added to the article some secondary sources focusing on Kers over significant periods of time in connection with significant and notable events surrounding milk products and milk production/marketing in the UK. The article can use more work and more sources, but it meets the notability threshold. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the Euros "billions" are still leveling at American billions (searches show $5 billion listed for American dollars too), thus billion dollar company CEOs are acceptable for notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic notability is an issue for deletion, article quality is not. I would encourage the creator to create slightly better supported biog articles though: this is one of several that have either been contested for deletion, or deleted. The way to avoid that is clearer notability and better sourcing. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:50, 13 May 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.