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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Banayoti[edit]

Ed Banayoti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BASIC with no clear secondary sources. It's unclear whether the one-paragraph Jordan Times source ("Princess Aisha marries Ashraf Banayotti") refers to the CEO Ed A. Banayoti, as it says nothing about him beyond his (differently spelled) name. Whether Banayoti is Jordanian royalty or a Canadian arms trade lobbyist or both, Google only returns a couple of LinkedIn type profiles when searching for "Ed Banayoti" or "Ed A. Banayoti". McGeddon (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: IPs are now claiming against sources on the Princess Aisha bint Hussein article that she married Ed Banayoti and divorced him a month later, so there may be some hoaxing going on here. --McGeddon (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete currently the article has no sources. It basically says "this guy is ethnical, you should higher him." It is blatant advertisement, and we have no clear claim to notability, no sources, and so we should delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC) <<-- AGREE[reply]

• This gentleman is real and he is a royalty. I am working for him. This page does not need to be deleted. What do you guys want as sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.69.77 (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BASIC: "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". --McGeddon (talk) 10:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• In addition to McGeddon's response, please also read our conflict of interest policy if you're his employee. It doesn't mean that you can't edit the article at all — but you do need to be very careful not to cross the line into public relations, as opposed to neutral and encyclopedic, editing. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Cites no reliable source coverage at all, and makes no claim that would entitle him to a presumption of notability in the absence of a properly substantiated WP:GNG pass. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he can be sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No sources to show this person even exists. Does not make clear how he is notable. JIP | Talk 16:47, 27 April 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.