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 speedy close; the article was deleted under CSD G5 by administrator Izno‎. (non-admin closure) – numbermaniac 05:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Kalms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

No independent/reliable sources: all churnalism, paid PR pieces, interviews, or promos. qcne (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, California, Nevada, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: At least a few of the references seem acceptable, including American Banker, L.A. Business First and Entrepreneur, as well as https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/aug/2/to-boost-donations-to-nonprofits-damar-hamlin-enco/ (published in the Washington Times, which I don't trust, but written by the Associated Press, which _is_ trustworthy). I would keep it and try to reduce the use of the word "visionary". Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify or delete. I've cleaned out most of the obvious paid placement and blackhat SEO sources. Article was written by an obvious paid editor that's likely part of a larger recent ring associated with a few SEO firms. AB and AP is fine, but mostly about the company. The Entrepreneur piece was written as part of their paid placement contributor blog program, similar to the useless Forbes and USAToday contributor pieces which disclaim involvement or fact-checking from the publication's editors. Sam Kuru (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: most references are clean and are legitimate, I see La Business, Entrepreneur, and American Banker. Also see the Associated Press (AP). Recommend keep 2600:8801:228:8200:118C:977C:C439:88BE (talk) 08:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see lots of links to other wikipedia articles that Dominic Kalms is connected with, including his Grandfather, High School, and Business who are all mentioned in the media articles cited. I would recommend keep.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Kalms,_Baron_Kalms

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milken_Community_School

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Philanthropy_Group Sam Lingast (talk) 08:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most links are legit, looks like one or two may be contributor pieces, but American Banker and Associated Press definitely are real, as is BBB Wise Giving Alliance, and Washington Times Lombardo17 (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I particularly note that the consensus of editors here that the Washington Times is not a reliable source, whether or not you disagree with their policies. Of course, consensus can change, but it's unlikely any time soon. American Banker, a trade publication, is by definition a primary source. We have never published original research. I see lots of allegations that he's notable because of the notable people and corporations for whom he worked, but we have no verification at all, and without independent confirmation, you don't get a Wikipedia page just because you say you worked for a famous Senator or went to an Ivy League college. It may not be common knowledge, but Wikipedia has fairly strict rules and guidelines for what can be used as a source. If you're here to build an encyclopedia, then you should read our rules. We have all these rules because of our sad institutional experience, where we got burned. If you're here to get paid, then you also need to read the Internal Revenue Code, section 501(c)(3), which forbids you from using us to make a profit. The Wikimedia Foundation is a private charity, not a for profit social media site. Bearian (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2025 (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.