Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Sacca

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, any cleanup tagging is an editorial decision. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 21:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Sacca

Delete Looking at the contribution history of those who originated the page and fleshed it out, it would appear to be a vanity page and more of a resume. --Ozgod 19:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cbrown1023 talk 01:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, 150+ Google News Archive results. Holds key technology position with one of world's largest tech companies. Individual is clearly notable, potential COI averted by relatively NPOV write-up. --Dhartung | Talk 03:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Absolutely absurd nomination. Suggest speedy keep to avoid ridicule of WP for having him listed here. It is fairer to judge by the article than the history--this is a very sedate NPOV bio, as appropriate for someone of his distinction. A great deal more can probably be said, but Google is often rather reticent about such things. DGG 04:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have no idea how this is a vanity page. How are User:Happilylost and User:Hopethisworks97 tied ot Chris Sacca. Moreover, who cares who wrote it as long as it's NPOV (which it mostly is). Also, no resume looks like this. Sure, education is emphasised, but education was a big part of this man's life (not to mention that the article is still stub-like). The Google news results suggest notability. Ergo, keep. -- Black Falcon 07:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but the external links need to be converted/added as citations. Smee 10:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep and send to cleanup per Smeelgova. This is a notable individual, the article is relatively NPOV, and there are sources. --Charlene 12:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag as work needed Alf^Photoman 15:28, 27 February 2007 (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.