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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Hutcheson (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)

I was thinking of a redirect to Oxford Properties, but this businessperson is not that big that such is warranted. Also, doesn't pass the GNG. Article written by a likely COI editor, and the Oxford Properties article suffers from the same promotional COI influence. Drmies (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, on the basis of his having been profiled in The Globe and Mail and the cited article in The Toronto Star - both are major newspapers in the Toronto market. PKT(alk) 17:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Besides the two in depth sources cited above, there seems to be quite a bit of sources available that are at least meh. For example, this, which isn't enough to establish notability on its own, but it probably enough to add a well sourced sentence or two to the article in addition to the coverage already there. Something like this could also potentially be useful if someone could get access to the full text. Overall, probably enough out there all things considered to write a halfway decent article. GMG^talk 15:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the CEO of a company that is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Granted it is a stub and needs updating to avoid being flagged for more issues.--BelBivDov (talk) 02:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- meh: the only piece that resembles a profile is the piece in Globe and Mail, but it's an interview. The rest is quotes by the subject or coverage not independent of his company. There's nothing here beyond a directory listing, and Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:34, 25 November 2017 (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.