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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Franzi[edit]

Richard Franzi (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)

Self promotional article, none of the sources seem to indicate notability standards. (Press releases, self published, etc.) Natureium (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG. It's a C.V. and an advert. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. They have been interviewed in Forbes, but that alone is not enough. Otherwise I see mainly mentions or, as Philafrenzy mentioned, self-published (or, at least, non-secondary) sources. Article in its current state also reads like a C.V. Overall, I just don't see enough for it to pass GNG at this time. If someone comes up with new information that I didn't find/see, which presents a good case as to why the article should be kept, I am more than willing to reconsider my !vote/position, just {{ping}} me. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2018 (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.