Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donahue Peebles III

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Donahue Peebles III

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Donahue Peebles III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

He fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. The Peebles Corporation company and his parents are notable but one can't be notable by association Ynsfial (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Ynsfial (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and WP:INHERENT. Herinalian (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as per above and WP:MILL. We are not WikiNepoBaby. He won a local award for building 17 units of housing, which is the development version of a drop in the bucket. Bearian (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete this text for a person notable as one of dozens of millions of people working as a real-estate agent. Tread carefully, though, because your olfactory faculties might be smashed by the sulfurous aroma of promotion. -The Gnome (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep because the subject was featured in four independent, reliable secondary sources with in-depth coverage. These sources are [1], [4], [5], and [14]. Based on what I’ve read in one of the queries on the Teahouse community: "To establish notability, the page should have at least two, or preferably three, independent, reliable secondary sources discussing the subject in depth." Therefore, it should not be removed, deleted, or deemed [notability|WP:INHERENT], as there are enough sources to prove his notability. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yen818 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Yen818 is the creator of the contested article.

• Is this truly a serious suggestion? Your first purported source is the WCNC page in YouTube. The next one is an advertorial from Business Insider, a website that "as of 2011, maintains a liberal policy on the use of anonymous sources." I mean, come on! Then we have a report on our subject saving/piggybagging a woman from flood waters in Florida, which makes our man being semi-notable for one event. The single citation unearthed that is worthy of notice is this 2014 article about the son being "a strong influence on the father," where more than half the text is about the father.

We simply cannot accept such puffery. -The Gnome (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2025 (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.