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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Petz[edit]

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

Non-notable business person with no actual in-depth coverage. All the sources are passing mentions or mill coverage, if it can even be called that. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing any evidence of notable coverage outside of passing mentions, a preliminary Google News search showed much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 18:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I accepted this from AfC based primary on this reference: [1]. It may not be enough if other sources do not corroborate it.Thsmi002 (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:50 year rule. SpinningSpark 19:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. scope_creep (talk) 10:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another run-of-the-mill business person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 12 February 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.