Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Businesspeople

WP:DSBOSS

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Businesspeople. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Businesspeople|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Businesspeople. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

This list is included in more general lists of business-related deletions and people for deletion.

Businesspeople

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karan Adani

AfDs for this article:

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

Since there is no prejudice against speedy renomination due to relatively low participation in the last AfD discussion, I am renominating this page for deletion again because the entire image of Karan Adani is promotional and his current page is nothing but a resume. Any mention of him, even in reputable publications like the New York Times, tends to focus trivially on his connection to his father and as a wealthy heir to the Adani Group. Within the Indian media sphere, the majority of coverage highlights things other than his achievements, which are not portrayed neutrally. Notedolly2 (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. Notedolly2 (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete given the concerns about the previous two AfDs.

Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect: Clearly promotional. Can be redirected to the father's article, if needed. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2024 (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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zahra Yarahmadi

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

Insufficient depth-of-coverage from third-party sources; Forbes article is from Forbes "contributor" which doesn't count toward notability. Only other is from Ilna, which by itself isn't sufficient. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Finance, Fashion, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Restored previous approved version with information and sources about fashion design only Ghazalyar (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article about Zahra Yarahmadi as it was with mentioning of her Iranian national craft arts. There is enough of coverage 77.253.185.232 (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— 77.253.185.232 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete: Sourcing, as explained by the nom, isn't sufficient. all I could find was was this (but I don't think it's the same person) [1], trivial coverage regardless. Oaktree b (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is the same person, Zahra Yarahmadi Viictoria14 (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added 8 more links from third-party, in-depth sources to verify the article's content and Zahra's impact on Iranian fashion. Let's keep the article live. Ghazalyar (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghazalyar is a single-purpose account who created this article and whose only contributions to Wikipedia have been to it. -The Gnome (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Either version of the article is just bad. The recent version was just a mix of contributor blogs (forbes/nasdaq), press releases (cbs42), and a junk PR site (dreamersdoers). All of it looked like paid placement. The author also attmpted to used a blackhat SEO blog associated with the Kivo PR farm, but was prevented by the blocklist. I won't even comment about the nature of the business that was being promoted there. The prior article, which was just restored by the author, has only three sources:

honaronline.ir - does not seem mention the subject of the article, but maybe the translation software is butchering it
dejavufashionstudio.com - subjects personal site, which was defunct by 2016 and the old copies at archive.org are pretty messed up
modefasl.ir - seems to be a very brief interview with the subject by the organizers of a fashion show?

The external link given has a longer interview, but very little on details about the actual subject of the article. I've looked for other sources, and see a large amount of paid places in the usual SEO sources. That makes it hard to find anything organic. Obviously, it's very difficult to search for Persian media, so I may have missed something. Sam Kuru (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

External link is from the Iranian Labour News Agency, an independent agency with considerable authority. It contains numerous mentions of Zahra Yarahmadi's impact. Other links are older but still mention Zahra's impact, including honaronline.ir.

It is worth keeping the article live to highlight Zahra Yarahmadi's impact on Iranian fashion. Organic mentions are hard to find because of the language barrier and the old dates when the impact was made. Viictoria14 (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Viictoria14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Added 8 more links from third-party, in-depth sources to verify the article's content. Let's keep the article live. Ghazalyar (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject does not meet the notability criteria. Whether the text has been posted up for reasons of fandom or promotion is irrelevant. WP:GNG is clearly not met. Let's graciously wish, at least, better luck in the future. -The Gnome (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacks in depth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article. The addition of 8 more links provides additional evidence of Zahra Yarahmadi's impact on Iranian fashion. However, it's important to acknowledge that meeting notability standards with articles dating back to 2013 is challenging. This article isn't meant for business promotion, especially since the business no longer exists. Rather, it aims to preserve the legacy of a fashion designer. Once again, upon analyzing the 8 additional links recently added, we can see that there is a range of sources, including national Iranian media resources and foreign ones, such as those from Sweden. 88.118.177.59 (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only contribution of 88.118.177.59 to Wikipedia.

Forensics on sources:

We have, in the "References" section, three inaccessible links, here, here, and here.

Under "External links," which formally do not work as sources, we have interviews, which, as well, do not qualify as a supporting source for notability, such as this, this, and this; this advertorial; one routine news listing; and this item about the Dejavu Art Cultural Institute.

Wikipedia is not the place for legacies. We either have notability-supporting sources, or we don't. This is not a directory nor some repository for any kind of information. As a matter of fact, it is not the host of haphazardly collected information, no matter how ostensibly noble the purpose. -The Gnome (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could we put a stop to the kamikaze accounts? The skies are getting crowded. -The Gnome (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2024 (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.

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. ✗plicit 12:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agogo Florence Awhobiwom

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

WP:ADMASQ about a non-notable philanthropist who fails WP:BIO as far as I can see. The sources cited in this article at best just mention her or the foundation she has set up, or are just downright non-reliable. I can't see any reliable sources offering in-depth coverage on a search either. Java Hurricane 13:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While there are reliable sources, they don't actually relate to the subject. Fails WP:BIO and notability isn't proven. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are, read the whole sources. I just changed the page name to a name it is mostly known with. If you still feel it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form let me know. I am trying to add impactful women in my society because wikipedia makes more women biographies. Ahola .O (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it is a stub, so it can be grown with time. she's notable. WikiProject Women Ahola .O (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Ahola .O (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTVOTE. While your cause is noble, you still have to provide adequate sources to prove that she meets notability. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notably, She is known to be the youngest individual to own a band at the Calabar Carnival, her band is The Florence Agogo Foundation (FAF Band). I just included this line and referenced it. Ahola .O (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amongst other things. i could sent some sources here that were not allowed to be cited on wikipedia Ahola .O (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are no sources that has significant coverage on this individual as they are about her foundation and press releases. Best, Reading Beans 03:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reading Beans OK. So is she notable to be on Wikipedia or she is not at this time? If she is and you feel the citations are the problem let me know. Ahola .O (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Problem of SIGCOV. An article about a humanitarian that meets no notability. The sources I found were either on another subject or a line mentioning her. Purely out like this, "may be notable in the future". Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, coverage seems moderately significant as per refs and a quick search.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Ahola .O (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately the BLP of almost every woman in West Africa opens with the claim that they are an entrepreneur and philanthropist, followed up by the claim that they are some form of ambassador for something. All of this is supported by churnalism and client media. This formula is followed again in this article. Being the youngest person to own a band at a carnival, in contrast, is a unique and novel claim, but unless her ownership of this band is the subject of sustained in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources it doesn’t help demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~KEEP~~ hello @Mccapra churnalism? i do not agree.Also it is not just any carnival, it is Calabar carnival, the biggest carnival in Africa. You can also google search her. I don't know why you had to make the statement about west African women but i feel as a young woman coming up she should be considered. You know what? delete it already, i am tired. Ahola .O (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ahola .O, stop bludgeoning the deletion discussion process. — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- The subject is not notable. Notability is not inherited. Ibjaja055 (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a promotional piece and fails WP:BIO. Her achievements do not add to notability. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 18 April 2024 (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.

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. Star Mississippi 16:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Fruman

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

Clear violation of WP:BLP1E relevant details should be merged into Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections Simonm223 (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We are way past that stage. He has become notable enough for his own article. Giving proper coverage (literally everything here) at Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections would create a due weight problem requiring a summary style splitting off, resulting in what we have here, so there is no sense in deleting this article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's notable for a single event. That it's widely covered is neither here nor there.Simonm223 (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Crime, Politics, Judaism, Belarus, Ukraine, Florida, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep BLP1E requires three conditions to be met. #3, The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented, is not met. The event is significant and his role in it is substantial and well documented. I say "weak" here because he has maintained a lower profile than Lev Parnas. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's more than one event. There's his involvement in efforts in Ukraine to search for damaging information on Biden, and then there's his campaign finance law conviction. The two are, as the article states, unrelated. Jfire (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. subject has enough reliable coverage such as 1 and 2.Bradelykooper (talk) 09:09, 10 April 2024 (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.

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. Not speedily as it has just come due for closure Star Mississippi 16:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lev Parnas

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

Obvious WP:BLP1E violation. Relevant details can be merged into Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections Simonm223 (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We are way past that stage. He has become notable enough for his own article. Giving proper coverage (literally everything here) at Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections would create a due weight problem requiring a summary style splitting off, resulting in what we have here, so there is no sense in deleting this article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, notable for a single event only. That it's a widely covered event doesn't change anything. Simonm223 (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Conspiracy theories, Crime, Politics, Judaism, Ukraine, Florida, Michigan, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BLP1E requires three conditions to be met. #3, The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented, is not met. The event is significant and his role in it is substantial and well documented. Also #2, The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, does not appear to be met. He just testified in front of Congress recently. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, perhaps SNOW? Per Muboshgu, this is a clear case of WP:NOTBLP1E. Jfire (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep There are obviously enough sources about Parnas to establish his notability, his role was substantial and well enough documented – resulting in this long article – and Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections is obviously long enough itself that that the substantial content here cannot be suitably merged. Reywas92^Talk 17:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Muboshgu, most of the WP:BLP1E criteria don't apply. hinnk (talk) 02:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Muboshgu. Sal2100 (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Muboshgu. There are enough sources documenting the substantial role of Mr. Parnas in Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chamalejo (talk • contribs) 17:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Blatant abuse of BLP1E, lack of WP:BEFORE. He has had extensive and significant coverage over the past 8 years. Bearian (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please close early. Based on a look at the OP's user pages, I can not assume good faith, nor calling out an experienced editor that they are adhering to our neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not a place to grind your axe or stand and scream on a soap box while wearing your vatnik. Bearian (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who agrees this should be a WP:SNOW close, I think your comments here are inappropriate and counterproductive. hinnk (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2024 (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.

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. ✗plicit 23:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unnikrishnan Nair Mannath

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

Non notable person. Only two references are give. One is to his own website. The other is to Money 2.0 Conference, which after checking the speakers show he was featured there. However, no real idea if that confers notability. There may be a WP:COI in that the creator, Unnikrishnannair1, may be involved in the company. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I find no news sources and only two hits in Gsearch, this feels very PROMO. I don't see enough coverage to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, United Arab Emirates, Delhi, Kerala, Rajasthan, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no secondary source coverage and the article reads extremely promotional.Sk1728 (talk) 12:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There could be COI as the user created account 8 days ago and he created the account only to create this page (16 edits, totally on this article only) and there are no any reliable sources as far as i can see. TheSlumPanda (talk) 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Delete: WP:FAILN References not sufficient to demonstrate notability, article also reads like potential self-promotion, or at very least a long way from WP:NPOV. Jamietw (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2024 (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.

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. ✗plicit 04:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marvín Sántana

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

Sourcing is not sufficient. Some articles have identical content, which would indicate press release or paid placement. Maxcreator (talk) 02:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Dominican Republic. Maxcreator (talk) 02:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Finance, Medicine, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. not meeting GNG, and has poor sources BoraVoro (talk) 07:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly even speedily, as pages for this individual previously existed at Marvin A. Santana and Marvin Amparo Santana which have already been deleted and draftified, respectively. Hatman31 (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2024 (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.

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 redirect‎ to Lotus Bank. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kafilat Araoye

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

An article about the CEO of a bank which doesn't prove notability. It's more of inherent and not a direct entry to Wikipedia. It was proposed for deletion but was deproded for redirect /merge. When it has been redirected, another editor reverted it with reasons whatsoever. It s more to civility and consensus if it's discussed. For now, it down meets GNG, but per WP:ATD, redirect to Lotus Bank SafariScribe (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Lists of people, Finance, Business, and Nigeria. SafariScribe (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lotus Bank: @SafariScribe: Thank you for bringing it here, I was going to do the same later today, it's great you already did. This fails WP:GNG and there's nothing more to it and per WP:ATD, it better be a redirect to Lotus Bank for now. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Can't find reliable enough independent sources on the subject.

Bradelykooper (talk) 06:58, 10 April 2024 (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.

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. Owen× ☎ 13:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frédéric Genta

AfDs for this article:

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

This biography was previously deleted at AfD. The reasons for that deletion remain in this version. The author portrays Genta as a politician, but there's no evidence they are an elected official, merely a civil servant - a chief digital officer. As the previous AfD said, CDOs are unlikely to be notable. As for the sources, they are press releases, interviews or mere mentions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, and Europe. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Monaco has a population of 39,000, and he is a minor civil servant. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He doesn't appear be (or was) an elected official, just a high ranking person in the ministry [2]. Oaktree b (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b he is an elected official and his department has 100 employees per THIS and other articles I have presented in my KEEP argument below. The article states "The creation of the position of Frédéric Genta. Its mission, with its team of 100 people: to develop a digital administration, make Monaco a smart city and a smart country, by promoting e-education, e-health, and e-security, and accelerate the environmental transition."

Further, check these 2 official Government appointment docs 1, 2 Rustypenguin (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rustypenguin, those sources confirm that he has been appointed by the Prince, for a two-year period, to do a job, rather than being a democratically elected politician. In Wikipedia, we don't write biographies about people who are merely doing their job. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He's featured in media quite a bit [3], [4], but always giving interviews or talking about digitial initiatives within the government. I don't see a FR wiki article about him, which I'd expect as Monaco is mostly a French-speaking country. He appears to be the face of the digital initiatives of the government, a spokesperson more than anything. Somewhat promo, I don't see GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is an appointed politician and as such he meets WP:POLITICIAN. Check these links for further verification 1, 2 and 3. Politicians do not need to be elected to considered a politician , so the nominators reasoning is not valid. In addition, there are several news articles that would prove his notability, such as

Monaco Tribune - Significant coverage, Reliable Source

Harvard Business Journal - Not an interview, only has some quotations, but 50% of content is journalist written. Reliable Source

gouv.mc - Article about his government appointment. Reliable Source.

monacolife.net - Good coverage. Reliable Source.Rustypenguin (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have a specific guideline on notability of politicians (WP:NPOL) and he doesn't meet that criteria. He is a government official, not a member of the legislature. For sources to contribute towards notability, they need to be independent of the source. The Harvard article is for alumni to promote themselves; the gouv.mc article is from his employer; the monacolife.net article is attributed at the bottom to "Monaco Life with press release" - press releases are not independent. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a cabinet minister, so no WP:NPOL passage. I'm not seeing WP:GNG in the sources in the article nor what I found in a search. The sources provided above are not convincing either; for example, the participant above claims that this source provides WP:SIGCOV of the subject, but it simply does not. Curbon7 (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has a lot of coverage. Meets WP:BASIC. He has coverage on Le Figaro and Le Monde which are 2 of the largest French publications. Additionally, he is also here and here. Per WP:BASIC, even if a subject does not have significant coverage in one publication, multiple publications can be combined to show notability. Maxcreator (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Maxcreator: as three of the four sources you've introduced are subscriber-only, can you clarify whether any of them - and if so which - are about Genta, rather than articles about the digitalisation of Monaco that mention him or quote him? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While Mr. Genta might not qualify under (WP:NPOL) criteria he definetely qualifies under (WP:BASIC) There are multiple independent sources available, and some of them listed in the article, as well as additional not listed. I quickly checked those sources and they are reliable (leading french-speaking media organizations), independent of each other since they are competitors , and independent of Mr Genta. This should be enough to fulfill the basic criteria. A quick google search retrieved articles about the work done by his office as well, including some from the Monaco government, as some recent interviews at BFM Business [5], a national TV focus on business in France and an interview at France Info [6]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chamalejo (talk • contribs) 18:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL, and I don't see a single source that's not either press release churnalism or an interview. The Le Figaro article, for instance, isn't coverage of him - it's just a quote, and I don't really believe WP:BASIC applies to articles where people just get quotes - it's a very flimsy argument for keeping an article because it necessarily assumes WP:GNG isn't met. This is very promotional, the sources are only really on him when it's a press release, and reads sort of like a CV, which is a huge red flag for me for a BLP. SportingFlyer T·C 00:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the specific element in this article that makes it "promotional"? The person in question leads an office within the Monaco government that is at the cabinet level and coordinates across ministries within the [Council of Government|Council_of_Government] as such, it is a notable position. Mr Genta role seems similar to the USA CIO currently filled by Clare_Martorana, her article is similar in simplicity and the references included are mainly related to her appointment. Also, very similar in content and references, the previous USA CIO Suzette_Kent. These examples are appointed, inter-secretary cabinet positions that are considered notable. I don't see why the decision should be different in this case. Chamalejo (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure either of those people are notable either, but the career section is written sort of like an extended CV. SportingFlyer T·C 06:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject is a government official with enough reliable coverage such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.Bradelykooper (talk) 09:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews don't count towards notability, and the other coverage is just reporting on him getting a role (like a press release) or just quotes him (not SIGCOV). I stand by my delete after that source review. SportingFlyer T·C 21:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1- None of these are press releases. I do not see that any say press release on it or that an identical press release exists that it was copied from. They are news stories.

2- None are 100% interviews.One is partially interview and partially original commentary. 2 have a few quotations and the other 3 have no quotations at all. Bradelykooper (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[7] is routine business news that would have been generated from something like a press release. Others are articles where a newspaper calls him up and gets a quote on a topic from him, which is not significant coverage - you don't get a Wikipedia article because newspapers call you for quotations. SportingFlyer T·C 16:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most news originates from press releases. However, when media outlets do not publish these releases verbatim and instead report on them, the content is transformed into a news article. This is a common practice for initiating news; companies announce new products, mergers, and other significant developments, prompting publications to write about these topics. As long as the press release is not published in its entirety as originally provided, it is considered a news article, not a press release. I do not know why you are trying so hard to discredit a notable government appointed official. I also note that another voter has brought up WP:BASIC, which states: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;" Bradelykooper (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bradelykooper: We are not discrediting the individual. What we are doing here is assessing the extent to which the subject meets the criteria that the Wikipedia community has come up with over years of refinement to determine whether or not there should be an entry about him in an encyclopedia.

I think you may have overlooked the part of WP:BASIC that says that to count towards notability, the sources need to be WP:SECONDARY, meaning providing thought and reflection - analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources - rather than just regurgitating a news release or quoting what Genta says. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2024 (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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akolisa Ufodike

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

WP:BLP of a bureaucrat and businessperson, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for either occupation. The attempted notability claims here are entirely of the "person who has had jobs" variety, but absolutely none of said jobs are "inherently" notable in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about his work in media -- but the article is referenced entirely to primary sources and blogs that are not support for notability, with not a single GNG-building source shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 02:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Nigeria, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 02:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability, this is more or less a LinkedIn profile disguised as an article — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Agree with MaxnaCarta. SportingFlyer T·C 17:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Less of GNG. If to analyse sources, they were differing over each other and doesn't make the article meet NPOL or NACADEMICS. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:18, 4 April 2024 (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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cory Johnson

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

Non-notable businessman / journalist. Natg 19 (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Journalism, and News media. Natg 19 (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 17:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with only 2 references, he would not qualify. Rustypenguin (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - zero reliable sources for a WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2024 (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.

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. ^Complex/_Rational 21:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natali Germanotta

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

This article is about Lady Gaga's sister Natalie, which is where the problem lies for a biographical article. It does not establish independent notability WP:N for this subject as by virtue of her sister's fame and notoriety, every source alluding to Natalie is actually focused on Gaga mainly with Natalie as highlighted mention. This can easily be deleted and its contents merged in the main Lady Gaga article and bits and bobs into respective song articles. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 20:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Women, Fashion, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete you'd be hard pressed to find a ref that exclusively focuses on Natali without largely revolving around having a Gaga connection, even in those where she is the main subject like a Teen Vogue interview (which doesn't count towards notability when this is a primary source) or a Women's Health list of facts (which explicitly talks about how Ms. Germanotta doesn't wish to be in the spotlight nearly as much as her sister has been). Some sources just rehash the former and don't really cut it either. WP:BIOFAMILY notes that being related to someone famous doesn't by itself entitle someone to their own article. I don't see a need to merge anything when all pertinent information is already included in Stefani's bio and tour/residency pages. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see enough coverage about her career in fashion to have an article. [8] is typical, either celebrity fluff articles or just about anything Lady Gaga does where she's involved. Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Simply inherent notability which is not WP:GNG! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 09:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Contributor892z (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2024 (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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

François-Serge Lhabitant

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

Does not meet any of the criteria for WP:ACADEMIC or WP:NAUTHOR. Being manager of a secretive family office does not seem enough. The article has no external references and was created by an WP:SPA User:Lhabitant that looks to belong to the subject himself. Searching for external sources I only found [9] and [10] which don't seem to meet the requirements for WP:SIGCOV. Contributor892z (talk) 08:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I reformatted the nomination, but I'm currently neutral on it. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Switzerland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, entirely promotional autobiography. Sandstein 11:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I haven't thought about this, but it does seem that WP:G11 applies because there are no references at all, so it reads like an ad. But I don't think that even rewriting the article to a neutral point of view would establish notability, so we might as well just want to delete through this channel, which is also applicable. Contributor892z (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought he might be notable as a researcher or an author. Google scholar shows multiple pieces of work cited dozens or hundreds of times, and I found two book reviews at 1 and 2 but on their own these probably aren’t enough. There may be more. Mccapra (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mid-level academic, author and entrepreneur. Record of scholarship's impact is not strong enough to establish notability under C1:WP:NPROF. I could find no reviews of his books (of course if there are multiple book reviews out there I didn't find, that might quality under WP:AUTHOR.) But after reading his online CV, I see no evidence at all of that, or of his meeting the other criteria. Qflib (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No doubt this person exists and is an academic, but fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:SIGCOV. Book reviews do not create notability on their own. Most scholarly books published by respectable presses get reviewed. That means very little toward their notability in the field, much less that of their author. Anwegmann (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2024 (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.

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. I see a consensus to Delete this article. If an editor wants to work on the article in Draft space and submit it for review to AFC, contact me or make a request at WP:REFUND. It's unfortunate that no improvements were made to the article over the course of the past week but if it is draftified, it will need substantial work to be accepted back into main space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leadership of the Walt Disney Company

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

I find it rather concerning that this article (which is arguably just an extensive list) was made as an undiscussed WP:CONTENTFORK and duplication of the Walt Disney Company#Leadership section, as well as other sections of people at the specific company units (ie Marvel Studios#Key people). I will note that, while the major shareholders are notable given the highly-profiled proxy fight, they do not suit major positioning that warrants a separate article for corporate leadership in a list and would be more beneficial in a section on the main article and in its infobox. Much of this list is comprised of unsourced or poorly formatted contents which seem like a cut-and-paste of the official Disney websites' hierarchical structure listings as opposed to providing any actual input or information as to who all of these people are and why they are all relevant to the leadership of a multinational conglomerate with millions of assets. Surely not all of them have an impact on the leadership. WP:PEOPLELIST states: "Because the subject of many lists is broad, a person is typically included in a list of people only if both of the following requirements are met:
The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement.
The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources.
There are some common exceptions to the typical notability requirement:

If the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met. If a person in a list does not have a Wikipedia article about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to: a) establish their membership in the list's group; and b) establish their notability on either WP:BLP1E or WP:BIO1E. In a few cases, such as lists of people holding notable positions, the names of non-notable people may be included in a list that is largely made up of notable people, for the sake of completeness."

I find it incredibly hard to believe that the vast majority of these persons included in this list are remotely notable, let alone relevant, to the company's overall and general leadership. They're not unit heads, on the company board, shareholders, or top-ranking/important execs. And for those that are notable, they are covered with more relevance at each individual unit's article, and ought not to all be compiled in this list, which is essentially looking for a purpose when everything relevant is already covered elsewhere. And if the notable persons are not mentioned, such content ought to be split to the relevant articles, not stockpiled here. If this were an article discussing Disney's history with leadership and succession issues, that would be a different story, though such splitting ought to be discussed at the main talk first to avoid such lists like this and AfDs from happening. There may be some merit in crafting an article on the highly-publicized proxy fight in which leadership and succession has been addressed, though this list is not the answer to that. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Disney, and Companies. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – As per WP:NOTDIRECTORY MaskedSinger (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Trailblazer101,

This being a brand new article and myself being a relatively new editor, I understand my mistakes in my writing of this article and I'd like to thank you for pointing them out. You have brought to my attention a series of issues that I believe CAN be solved without a necessity for deletion or merging.

This article was intended to provide a visualization for the organization of one of the most written-about and complex organizational structures. It was not intended to provide a list of people working for the Walt Disney Company, as you brought up, but rather to detail how the company's business units were organized and provide a central location for Wikipedia articles regarding the Walt Disney Company's subdivisions and business units (as seen in how the article has been implemented into Portal:Disney, Category:The Walt Disney Company, Category: Disney Executives and WikiProject: Disney). After bringing up these concerns, I understand that it would be better to show this by focusing more on the business units and their descriptions rather than simply an organized list of the units and the people who run them.

Going forward, I believe some changes are in order.

1) We will clean up the article by deleting insignificant sections that are not worthy of being in an encyclopedia, per Wikipedia:Notability.

2) We will reorganize the article to shift its focus from being a list of people to being more fixated on the structure of the company. That way, it will be more clear that this is not intended to be a list of people, but rather a list of positions and units of the Walt Disney Company.

3) We will add more descriptive information so that this article fulfills its purpose of explaining the organization of a notable corporate structure.

4) We will add more references and more links to showcase how well-documented and notable this subject is from multiple trusted media outlets.

I believe this topic, after much revision, will merit its own article, rather than to be compiled into a main article because of how heavily the structure of the Walt Disney Company (and changes of such) is reported in the media.

Essentially, this is a new article and needs a lot of work. You are correct that this article, as a list of people, does not necessitate its own article. However, were we to revise the article and shift its focus to discuss the in-depth structure of the Walt Disney Company so that it serves its intended role, this article would be attractive to readers interested in corporate structure, business, and The Walt Disney Company. As a new editor, I know mistakes are bound to be made, so I appreciate you all for catching them. Please help me out with any suggestions on how we can revise this article to serve a purpose that would be notable and attractive to readers. However, I do not believe deleting this article is the right solution.

To answer your concerns directly in case there was any confusion:

"would be more beneficial in a section on the main article and in its infobox"

The structuring of The Walt Disney Company is quite complex at this depth and wouldn't fit well into the main article.

"Much of this list is comprised of unsourced or poorly formatted contents which seem like a cut-and-paste of the official Disney websites' hierarchical structure listings as opposed to providing any actual input or information as to who all of these people are and why they are all relevant to the leadership of a multinational conglomerate with millions of assets"

Regarding the sourcing, you're right. Much of the sourcing came from the same websites, especially when positions were a part of the same unit. What we need to do is copy the references to every instance that they apply to, rather than noting them once. Regarding the formatting and cut-and-paste claim: could you clarify what you mean about the formatting? Being much more experienced than me at Wikipedia editing, you likely know more about how to better format such an article. I'd be open to any suggestions you have. This article was not a copy-and-paste from the company's website outside of the top executives in each business segment. Disney business websites do not detail the structuring of their company below the business segments. A lot of in-depth research was done to find information about organization levels below the top executives.

Regarding your claim about WP:PEOPLELIST notability requirements

You're correct again here. I hadn't read those entirely yet, and you provided good information for me. I've now read Wikipedia's notability requirements, which influenced my idea to shift the focus of this article to the organization of the company rather than a list of people, also providing a description explaining the structure and role of certain positions. Such a change would give this article so much more value, and I hadn't thought of that before your message. So thank you for the link to WP:PEOPLELIST.

One final note, I've been working on linking this article with Wikipedia:Wikiproject Disney and the relevant categories surrounding this article. The purpose of this is to link the article with the relevant editing community so that I can get help from them as to how best to improve this article. I'd like the chance to work with them as well as more experienced editors, such as yourself, to fix these concerns and turn this article into one of notability and attractiveness.

Thank you for your concerns, and I look forward to hearing any suggestions you, or others, have. Investor Day (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Investor Day, it never hurts to work on improving the article under discussion during this week-long period to address the concerns of the nominator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Investor Day: Precisely, you are free to improving this article based on the concerns I raised while this discussion takes place. I would highly suggest working on this in the WP:Draftspace or your own WP:Userspace, such as a WP:Sandbox, if you wish to perform further work in case of deletion so you can retain a copy of your current work. I have tagged the article's talk page with the relevant WikiProjects and notified each of them regarding this nomination. I would love to see a strategic analysis on the company's history of structural and leadership changes discussed in a more thorough and critical article as opposed to a staunch list, and I'm glad to hear your willingness to improve this into something more! And hey, if this does go to the draftspace or is deleted, that is okay, too, as you can always work on it as a draft or in your userspace and then submit it through our WP:Articles for creation team which would be happy to assist you in article creation endeavors. Our WP:Teahouse team is also here to assist you. I'm glad to hear you have a vested interest in the Walt Disney Company and its leadership structure, and commend your for your thorough research. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll get to work on that. Honestly, I would be more interested in writing that kind of article anyway.

And thanks for the tips, I've been exploring a lot of the WP help pages and different WikiProjects because of your comments! Investor Day (talk) 02:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Much of this information does not interest most readers. This is not Investopedia. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per NOTDIRECTORY. Any leadership that is relevant can be placed in the infoboxes of the respective Wikipedia pages. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved this page under my User space in order to keep it as a reference for myself and give myself a space to rework it (as discussed above) and re-publish it into the mainspace after review from the relevant WP communities. I'm not sure that I'm allowed to remove the AFD nomination, so please let me know how to proceed or take action yourself. Hopefully this is a valid solution. Thank you all for the suggestions and consideration. Investor Day (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Investor Day, do not move an article being discussed at an open AFD discussion until it is closed. If you want the article userfied or draftified, state that as your desired outcome. But you can not usurp this discussion by moving the article under discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 8 April 2024 (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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William McLean (Quebec politician)

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

Biography of a smalltown mayor not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As usual, mayors are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on a significant volume of reliable source coverage enabling us to write substantive content about their political impact (specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their mayoralty had on the development of the community, and on and so forth) -- but this is referenced entirely to primary source directory entries that are not support for notability, with absolutely no evidence of third-party coverage in media or books shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, WP:NPOL, and WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not qualify per WP:NPOLITICIAN.Rustypenguin (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2024 (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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shanique Palmer

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

Fails WP:BIO. The best of the otherwise useless current set of references is an article about her regaining her figure after her pregnancy, hardly the stuff needed to satisfy WP:GNG. The best I could find is this article/video. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Jamaica. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sources are mostly fluff pieces and don't appear to meet notability requirements. Perhaps an article can be written about this subject when she meets them.

UptonSincere (talk) 05:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: PROMO. Having a fit physique after children isn't quite the stuff of notability here, I don't see anything about this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:BEFORE is giving me more of "a medical profession" or a "consultant". Welp, bearing it's has no source and didn't meet GNG, SIGCOV, ANYBIO. Deletion is not far an option! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:34, 8 April 2024 (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.

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. The editor who created this article stated they were going to work on improving it but, 10 days later, no content changes have been made to the article so I'm going with the consensus to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Moseley (producer)

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

Not yet notable by WP:BIO or WP:GNG. He's worked with several notable people and groups, but on Wikipedia, notability is not inherited. In a WP:BEFORE search I can find only passing mentions in reliable, secondary sources; the rest is music blogs and a few profiles in what look like paid placements. Wikishovel (talk) 07:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Music. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The last four refs are completely trivial mentions that do not support the puffy claims at all ("prominent figure", "plethora of studio albums", "wide-ranging list of clients"). The brief LA Weekly articles do not seem to mention him. Salem-news just mentions him as a speaker with no other information or context. Searching independently is complicated by an actor with the same name, but I can see several gushing articles in known blackhat SEO sources that mention this person; that kind of PR makes it challenging to find anything reliable and organic. Sam Kuru (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I vote for not deleting but having it better written and sourced. William Moseley is aka captain chronic from the Kottonmouth Kings and Kingmaker. He defiantly should be in Wikipedia. When I was in Iraq I used to jam out to his music. Edwinwrites (talk) 06:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Edwinwrites (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this afd. [reply]

Can you link to any sources that support the claims in the article? Sam Kuru (talk) 11:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will rewrite the article and find better sources to cite. There are a few actors with his name, which makes it more difficult to find credible secondary sources. His music and movie credits are easy to find on Discogs, Allmusic, and IMDb, but I don't view those sites other than IMDB as very credible. I should have included that he was captain chronic from the Kottonmouth Kings when I originally wrote the article. It was late, and I was tired when I wrote it. I was explaining the Kottonmouth Kings and Kingmaker to a friend when I tried to look for him on Wikipedia under any of his stage names, but I could not find him. He must have another page that I need help finding. Edwinwrites (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: complete lack of SIGCOV both with the references already in the article, and from a quick scour of the internet. When you take a closer look, the provided references don't actually prove the claims made in the article, so either they are redundant or have been updated since. Let's take a deeper dive:

Ref 1 doesn't even mention him by name, only connecting the band with the record company in passing.

Ref 2 lists Moseley as the speaker at an event, but gives no information about him, and mentions him only in passing.

Ref 3 fails to mention Moseley, or backup the article's claim in any way - it does not say he executive produces it, or that it is acclaimed.

Ref 4 mentions in passing that he is the producer of the album that the article is talking about, but nothing more. It doesn't say that he's been prominent, or released any number of albums.

Ref 5 is essentially the same: a news article covering this event, with only a passing reference to Moseley.

Ref 6 says that a given artist is signed to a given record company, without mentioning Moseley. Also, one client signing cannot backup the claim that 'He has a wide-ranging list of clients signed to his company', or that it's his company in the first place.

Ref 7 is essentially the same as 4 and 5: a news article covering this event, with only a passing reference to Moseley.

Hopefully, this explains how the article has no backed up claims, and after scouring the internet for 10 minutes, I can't find anything that backs up these claims myself. The refs themselves do not provide substantial enough coverage to cut down the article's content to referenced claims, as there are none. Thanks, JacobTheRox (talk) 10:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. I'm not seeing how his work for a band, or in films, makes him notable. Producers, even "executive" ones, are not automatically notable. An article needs text showing his connection was notable, and significant coverage about him. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2024 (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.

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. CBE meets weak sourcing. No indication a 3rd relist would change the split here. Star Mississippi 01:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Butterfield

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of WP:notability under SNG or GNG. Basically a promotional -resume. The lead just says that he is a British brand and communications expert.

The references are just a collection of mentions / announcements on him. Nothing anywhere near even one GNG source.

Some concern that the creator has 28 lifetime edits, all on this article. Article was tagged for UPE concern by somebody else and the tag was quickly removed by an IP. The IP that removed it has 2 lifetime edits...one removing the tag and the other putting a link at another article to this article. North8000 (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Advertising, and United Kingdom. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I looked at a couple of sources and they do seem weak: mostly quoting him on other things and mentioning him briefly, but he appears to have been awarded the Order of the British Empire? Mrfoogles (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Being a commander of the Order of the British Empire is a strong hint that he's notable. The article 2007_Birthday_Honours#Commander_of_the_Order_of_the_British_Empire_(CBE) includes a listing for Leslie Paul Butterfield, Managing Partner, The Ingram Partnership. For services to the Advertising Industry. See also https://www.campaignindia.in/article/interbrands-global-chief-strategy-officer-relocates-to-china/418253/amp and https://en.everybodywiki.com/Leslie_Butterfield_CBE (unreliable source but good for context). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to know what it was awarded to him for, though. The current sources could be better. Mrfoogles (talk) 03:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A CBE has usually been considered to be notable per WP:ANYBIO #1. See here. People are not awarded such a high honour for nothing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "CBE" is prestigious title and award. Meets WP:ANYBIO.Maxcreator (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I don't think an article about a person should be kept purely on the strength of a CBE. Dozens are given out every year. The article needs to make a claim of notability. At present it reads like a CV. Deb (talk) 07:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking at it again, I think it's obvious that there's an undeclared COI here and I'm going to tag the article accordingly. 07:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Dozens every year in a country of 67 million is not many! These are highly prestigious honours. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I think that wp:notability does unofficially take real world notability into account a bit, for biographies the core of it is about available of GNG sources from which to build an article. As I noted in the nomination "The references are just a collection of mentions / announcements on him. Nothing anywhere near even one GNG source. " Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I still do not see a consensus here. Either a being award a CBE is sufficient or it isn't. Is there any specific guideline on honors such as this and notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I added the Authority control template at the bottom of the article. For what it's worth, that did kick up VIAF hits in multiple languages that show his woks are in various international libraries. Seems to me that makes him notable.— Maile (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Neutral. I am not British. and not knowledgeable on the subject matter. — Maile (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2024 (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.

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. (non-admin closure) Toadette^Edit! 18:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Håvar Bauck

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

Bio appears promotional, lacks verification from reputable sources, and does not meet the General Notability Guidelines BoraVoro (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Kenya, and Norway. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - There seems to be more than enough references that are reliable and the notability criteria is met with significant, non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of each other to keep a posting about Håvar Bauck .I think that the page certainly is within the realm of the spirit of Wikipedia. Felixgfive (talk) 10:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- So this user claims a COI, but doesn't say with who, has just started their account, and has simply copied the notability language. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject easily passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Article is clearly written in WP:NPOV. He is also a recognized voice of the travel industry in Kenya. Does the nominator consider major sources like Nation Media, Capital Business or BusinessDay (WP:NGRS) not reliable because they are African? ANairobian (talk) 09:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Techcrunch is an obviously reputable and reliable source. Skift and Phocuswire (by Northstar Travel Group) are reliable international travel publications. Daily Nation and Business Day are two of the most reputable newspapers in Kenya and Nigeria respectively. Capital Business is also widely recognized as a reliable Kenyan business news source. Ventureburn (by Memeburn) is a major Pan-African entrepreneurship news source. 197.254.70.206 (talk) 09:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to concerns of canvassing. One account was registered after this AfD had begun, the other account is also only about two weeks old, and the third is an IP editor.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nobody asked me to write or vote here. I'm a new editor, but I've been observing and learning for a while. I came across the AfD in WP:KE and recognized the name because I've read about him, read several of his articles, and also seen him speaking at conferences. Definitely notable in my opinion. I personally don't think the article reads like an advertisement, but since at least two editors disagree, I took the liberty to make some small edits, toning down the language a bit and moving some supporting references immediately next to the parts about "first in Africa". Hope that does it!ANairobian (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment appears to have been WP:REFBOMBED with churnalism, press releases, self-published works and interviews. Does not appear to have any reliable sourcing. Can those seeking to keep this provide two reliable sources? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm expecting that this gets relisted again to be honest. I have similar concerns to you. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of these sources used are in reputable publications, which should be fairly easy to verify, e.g several news stories in Finansavisen, a leading Norwegian business daily (Article 1, Article 2); Techcrunch (Article); Ventureburn (Article 1, Article 2); Capital Business (Article); Business Day (Article); Phocuswire (Article); The Exchange (Article 1, Article 2) 185.128.9.106 (talk) 05:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1 is fine and a RS, the rest are iffy. I'm not sure we're at notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Too many promo sources, hardly any in RS. A Gsearch brings up the usual social media, venture funding PR items, not much in Gnews. I can't find enough SIGCOV that isn't PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep few articles found notable but more to the company and as founder I find this one notable Norway article which is pretty much reliable, other 2 that discusses the founders can be generally accepted as secondary source, since company that he’s founded and of CEO has article over years. HarshalDhotre06 (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Make a policy based argument. It doesn't matter whether the company has an article or not, as notability is not inherited. WP:NINI Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for NINI I didn’t know about it yet. I’mm gonna make my comment in an hour based on NINI. HarshalDhotre06 (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:NINI is an important policy, WP:AUTHOR and WP:ENT also state that artists and authors may derive notability from notable works. Wikipedia lacks elaborate notability policies for entrepreneurship, but it would make sense that people who have built notable companies (being a founder is much more than a mere association with a business) should derive some notability from their work. 196.207.188.98 (talk) 12:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The editor did an amazing job writing the article with respect to neutrality, but one of the sources in particular concerns. This one [11]. Pretty strange! For a journalistic sit down interview, I would have expected a question and answer, with the questions on the article like this [12]. However, the article seems like it was written by the subject himself and handed to the publisher for printing. The article was evidently not written by the journalist profiled (hence the subject's use of single person throughout), and no sign of the journalist's input other than the brief intro.Tamsier (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2024 (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.

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 redirect‎ to Registered Agents Inc.. There is consensus against keeping this as a biographical article given that the person is apparently covered only in the context of his businesses, but there is no consensus to outright delete. Which leaves us with a redirect as the only possible outcome. Sandstein 07:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Keen

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

First, unless it can somehow be confirmed that this guy is the owner of this company (and even if he is) I don’t know how this is notable other than part of the company article. There is an allegation of ownership in the reference article, but his ownership (or even employment) is denied by the company’s lawyer said that this guy acted as an agent for the transaction and is not an owner or employee. Second, Weird story about an unnamed landscaping company to domain registrar? I’m not sure how this is notable. If anything, he maybe gets a mention on the underlying company pages that he’s allegedly the owner if even that hits the bar, but i don’t see that he deserves his own article. Third, my gut feeling is that this appears to be a hit piece as there are allegations of neo nazi ties, etc. Caution must be exercised in these types of allegations. The Registered Agents Inc. Company confirmed ownership of Epik in the press release cite (as of Feb 2024, not 2023), but there doesn’t seem to be anything but an allegation about Keen and this could be considered libelous without a more solid citation. But again, my feeling is that this article is a hit piece if the guy even actually exists. Dougieb (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dougieb (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Something is rotten about this deletion from the nominator, who suddenly came back on en.wiki after a ten-year hiatus and seems to have had issues within the registered agent topic area in the past; three soild sources for the article from mainstream outlets about the subject, and a rationale that may be over the line and hitting WP:NLT regarding allegations being libelous. Epik is also heavily known for hosting sites most hosts wouldn't touch and has been exhaustively documented. @Dougieb:, please declare any conflicts of interest immediately and reel back the legal threats because that's not how we play at all in article or AfD spaces. I am also pinging @Amigao: and @Grayfell:, who dealt with a certain editor, Dunkinidaho (talk · contribs) who has been trying to remove Keen's name from the Epik article despite the Wired/WaPo sourcing; also declare if you are related to that account. Nate • (chatter) 00:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about addressing the crux of my AFD rather than attacking the messenger? MY AFD is not WP:NLT because I didn’t make a threat, I just reasonably suggested that before tagging someone a Neo Nazi (which could be considered per se defamation), perhaps there should be some solid ground for doing so. Having read the cited articles (which the actual crux of one is using fake personas), it is not even clear whether “Dan Keen” even exists which is how I ended up here in the first place today. You are mirepresenting that there are “three solid sources” for Dan Keen existing much less being owning this company or being associated with Neo Nazis. The only source mentioning him is the Wired article which ALLEGES that he owns the company, but later notes that the company said he was an agent for the transaction and is not an owner or employee of the company. Why is there no other source anywhere tying this guy to the company anywhere? I it another fake name as described in the cited articles? The Epik company is “heavily known for hosting sites most wouldn’t touch”, that is not in question, but this isn’t about that. This is about the claim that this guy owns it, and if he bought it, is he a Neo Nazi? If there is anything substantive tying this guy (if he exists) to either company, please point it out because I’m interested myself, but everything I’ve found just cites the Wired article. No I’m not related to Dunkinidaho , however from what I’ve seen, the Registered Agent Inc. Company appears to be based in Idaho, so there is your clue. If Keen does exist and his company did buy Epik, are they still hosting these sites? Or did they boot them? From the press release it seems the latter, so if this is not a hit piece, why mention it? I have zero conflicts of interest and actually want someone to prove me wrong here and put up something substantial. But in the meantime, this smells like a hit piece which would be funny if the guy ends up being another of the alleged “fake personas.” @Amigao seems to have had issues with sourcing in the past, so there is that. Dougieb (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As MrSchimpf explains, this nomination was your first edit in almost exactly ten years. You also have a warning on your talk page for adding spam to National Registered Agents, Inc. back in 2008. You're not helping your case by getting all indignant and verbose about the obvious WP:COI issues this raises. Oh, and WP:NLT absolutely does apply here. Grayfell (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I haven’t edited in ten years. The former disputed article about National Registered Agents Inc. Back in 2008 was not even SPAM. I believe this was a long time before this Registered Agents Inc. Thing ever started. There is no reasonable argument that Keen is notable - if he even exists. If anything, he’s a footnote in the Registered Agents Inc article as a footnote that he is the alleged owner. It is not helpful to have disinformation and mischaracterization of Wired articles as legitimate content. National Registered Agents was a legit major company eventually acquired by CT Corporation which is a subsidiary of Wolters Kluwer, a multi-billion $ publicly traded company.

What is suspect is reading the cites on this article and trying to reconcile them with the hit piece that is the Keen article. I’ve found two potential Dan Keens and nothing connects together. I hope that you can find something to substantiate both his ownership of these companies and his existence. Perhaps the community working together can do this. The cited article is literally about fake personas, and signs point to Keen being one of them. If biographies of imaginary people are a thing on Wikipedia now, yay for that. Nate’s contention that there are “three solid sources” for the article is also very telling. Note that I didn’t even bother to correct the blatant factual disconnects between the article and the cites, but submitted AFD instead. You want me to correct the errors instead? Because then the accusations would really fly. What is Adigao’s agenda here? That is the question. Dougieb (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the community working together can do this. this isn't what AFD is for. See WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP and WP:OR. Currently sources do not suggest he is a fake persona, so using that possibility as a reason to delete the article is misleading, at best. Sources say that according to multiple sources Keen is the founder and owner of the company. That a company founded on secrecy and technically-legal obfuscation would be evasive about this is too boring to bother with. If you have reliable sources, propose them. Alternately, if you have a valid, policy-based reason the current sources are insufficient, explain that reason. If, instead, you think this is a WP:BLP issue, make that case directly, but don't just throw out a bunch of reasons in the hopes that one will stick, because that is disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s only a WP:BLP issue if he’s real. If turns out he’s real then yeah the nazi thing would need to be cleaned up. Let’s say he is real… okay he buys this domain registrar that hosted nazi stuff, then he (new owner) gets rid of the nazi stuff, so is it still appropriate to tie him to the Nazi stuff? The company sure. Dougieb (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dougieb, if you think a WP:GREL source like Wired is disinformation, the place to raise that and make your case is WP:RSN. - Amigao (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think it’s disinformation per se. I just think maybe they were duped into this Keen thing perhaps to distract from Havre. Dougieb (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NLT very-Specifically does not apply here, Grayfell. It is a very heavy link to accuse a fellow editor, IMO, thank you for making me aware of it. Dunkinidaho (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We follow what the WP:RSes state. According to the Feb 8th Wired article, "[T]he founder and owner of Registered Agents...is a man named Dan Keen." The March 5th Wired article is a more in-depth investigation of Dan Keen and the company he founded, Registered Agents Inc., following the acquisition of Epik. It should be noted that WP:NLT is hard Wikipedia policy. Agreed with MrSchimpf that we need to get any COI issues here openly declared in accordance with WP:COI and WP:PAID. - Amigao (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you don’t have ulterior motives and are being objective, I would think you would also want to include that in the same article, the company denied that “Keen” is an employee or owner. I suspect “Keen” may be one of the fake personas, but if so, why does the company lawyer say he was a “consultant in the acquisition?” There are a couple Dan Keens I found and I’m trying to find out more about them to see if they are “the” Dan Keen. The Wired article states, “ In an email, a lawyer for Registered Agents Inc. says Keen is not the owner nor an employee of Registered Agents Inc. or Epik, and that he acted as a consultant in the acquisition.” So… which is it? And if we find this guy and even if he is an owner or employee, does this warrant his own article? Or should this be merged since his only notariety appears to be his connection to this company. Dougieb (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Several reliable sources discuss Keen in sufficient depth, thus meeting WP:NBIO. Per the cited sources, including Epik's own press release, Keen's company isn't merely acting as a registered agent for Epik, it is providing registered agent services to Epik's customers. More sources and more context would, obviously, be welcome. There are potential WP:BLP issues here, but these would have to be addressed directly, not obliquely as a WP:CRYBLP attempt to censor the article. Grayfell (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is the same exact source. All of these sources end up back at the same source. WP:CRYBLP doesn’t really apply (yet?) because someone first needs to establish that it is even an existing person much less living. The only “Dan Keen” i can find is a musician/producer and while its not impossible that it is actually him, I am unable to connect the dots so maybe someone else can succeed where I have failed. [MrSchimpf] “keenly” (LOL) above noted that there was a user [DunkinIdaho] who has been attempting to edit the page - and the underlying company does have a connection to Idaho, so that is interesting to me. As far as notability, this would be okay if we first could substantiate that the guy exists at all. Since the press release from the company says that he was a “consultant” in the acquisition, that’s the only thing I see that suggests that he does exist, but this company has been accused in the same article of using fake personas and fake names, so it is a dead end. I’m not saying to censor the article at all. Actually I should have suggested AFD-Merging it into the company article. Dougieb (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia uses reliable sources to 'establish' that he exists. For us to try and do that ourselves would be original research. A press release is usable as a primary source, but we generally do not use press releases for contested information, and we do not attempt to interpret primary sources in this way, either, as that is also a form of original research.

If you have some reason to think this source is unreliable, you should explain that, because your personal inability to verify the source is not a valid reason. Grayfell (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody can verify the source. The guy doesn’t seem to exist other than in a Wired article. It is just bizarre. Why isn’t there something else on this guy out there? Nobody is that far off the grid. I just suspect it is another fake name in this group of other fake names. I’d love to use another source… where is it?! In one group people discuss that apparently Keen can’t be served with legal service because no process server can find him or even verify that he exists. That’s original research (and hearsay), so I wouldn’t put it in an article. But what is up here? Nobody is that invisible. Dougieb (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Keen's existence is not the issue. As you've pointed out twice, a company attorney claimed did not deny his existence but merely stated that Keen acted as a "consultant." Given that Wikipedia follows what WP:RSes state as a matter of policy, do you have a WP:RS that contradicts the other reliable sources cited in the article? Amigao (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree! Existence, neither here nor there. Learning more about CRYCRYBLP from Grayfell or following WP:RS seems very distractive to me as well, at least currently. If we were to AGF and assume both your wired articles to be a single, independent and reliable source (and it doesn't possibly need in-text attribution to "Ex-Employees" added to furnish it's info)... Where's other WP:SIGCOV so that it can overcome a potential WP:GNG issue here and be more clarifying? Dunkinidaho (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 01:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SOFT DELETE/DRAFTIFY - The tldr to me is this:

1. This page is NOT enyclopedic in substance AND the author's motives seem...off.

2. This doesn't have a snowballs chance of surviving as a NPOV BLP unless this story develops and builds into something with more sources.

3. The only sources with the subject's name attached are two related stories, both from Wired. I don't think that meets notability standards for a BLP. These sources are non-independent of eachother.

4. If the editor's true intent was to provide information from a neutral point of view, and NOT low-key doxx the subject, this page would be about Registered Agents Inc and Keen would have a section within it. That way you would avoid any BLP drama, the information on this page lives there, and you can follow a chain of facts if you want to know more. But I don't think neutral or straight facts are the intent here.

Expanded reasoning:

The page was written by an established editor here who must know sourcing is thin and is trying to make up for weak sourcing with other articles that mention Registered Agents Inc, which is arguably the actual subject of both Wired articles, and that's certainly the case with everything else that's been used as a source on the Dan Keen page. That's why I suggested on the talk page of this article that the real subject is Registered Agents Inc, just like the actual owner of Epik is also Registered Agents Inc. That's fact and there's plenty of sourcing for ownership of that property (public business records and news articles) just like there's plenty of internal wikipedia sourcing for how to treat a company infobox, but @Grayfell and @Amigao only seem to like rules when those rules back their opinions.

I'm not saying Keen shouldn't be mentioned when talking about Registered Agents Inc. or Epik. But the desire to disregard the company and make a page for Keen when sourcing seems thin, and when asked why not make it a Registered Agents Inc page, their reaction was to tattoo my talk page with a COI tag? That just feels gross. Why not just talk to me first? Also, I’m fairly new here, but is there a non-nefarious reason you purposely Transcluded the UW-paid template onto my page instead of protocol? Your first branding was responded to, promptly, and now you've now done so twice.

For the record, no one is paying me to edit this. I have no vested interest in this company or person, and I very much dislike now being associated with whatever weird corporate shill/thing DougieB is that kicked this thing off (thanks @MrSchimpf. good luck on your deck-stacking attempt--for reference, please see edit history here (keep: as Per nate). that's just lame).

Anyway, I've said Keen's role is unclear in the company because in the Wired article, the company's formal response was to say that Keen isn't an employee or the owner and that Wired's facts were "patently false." On the other side of that is quotes from ex-employees of a business that uses aliases to do most things.

It's wild that that's the company that bought the Alt Right's domain registrar and then was on twitter calling the Alt Right "beta snowflakes" after kicking Kiwi Farms off their platform. Not only is that objectively funny, the whole thing sounds nuts (albeit not too nuts to warrant a mention of Epik’s termination in either article.)

I didn't even know the Alt Right had a domain registrar until a couple months ago, but back then if you’d asked me, I would've also thought the Wiki-editorial community had a much more academic agenda. Dunkinidaho (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even know the Alt Right had a domain registrar until a couple months ago You were adding PR to the Epik page in June of 2023. Before that you had made only ten edits (enough to get autoconfirmed) and have made a grand total of 36 edits. Your willingness to lecture and insult more experienced editors about Wikipedia policy suggest that this isn't your first account. Grayfell (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "PR" I contributed to the Epik page in June of 2023 should look very familiar. It's the 5th source cited here on this page you're currently defending. You're absolutely right. My Expanded Reasoning did exhibit some "willingness" to stray from discussing this Articles' wiki merit...

As a newer editor (first account, unfortunately) I will be keeping my future responses limited to the substance of the Dan Keen page, as you did in your response to it. Dunkinidaho (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LOL… bro I got your “weird corporate shill/thing” right here. As was noted, I haven’t made an edit in probably ten years but was compelled here because this just doesn’t add up. The only Keen i can find anywhere is some musician and he doesn’t seem like a guy that owns and runs a couple giant companies. It just smelled of a hit piece, but is it a hit piece if the guy doesn’t actually exist? It would hold up a little better if the whole thing wasn’t about alleged fake personas and names. TBH I probably would have let the whole thing drop, but then I also got a COI from the article’s author which made me say hmm… If this guy exists and owns these two apparently large companies, there HAS to be something somewhere on him, right?Dougieb (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Epik article. Keen as a standalone page fails WP:GNG as there's nothing notable about Keen aside from Epik and Registered Agents, Inc. The Wired article mentions Keen 15 times, but sources everything to the accounts of anonymous ex-employees, such as: "Keen is described by former employees as a driven but eccentric businessman who is prone to micromanagement and sudden shifts in mood." and "Keen dresses modestly, former employees say, wearing shorts and flannel shirts, and is an avid skier and outdoorsman". What other WP:SIGCOV is there on Keen himself? BBQboffin^{grill me} 17:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, the Feb 8th Wired article mentions him 8 times while the more in-depth March 5th Wired article mentions him 15 times. - Amigao (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also amenable to delete. BBQboffin^{grill me} 06:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or merge) to Epik article. There isn’t even sufficient information (to me anyway) to demonstrate conclusively that Keen exists. The Wired article is the only source and the article talks about how the company allegedly uses fake names and personas. Is this just another fake name? If he does exist, the article could be considered libelous as it alleges neo nazi ties which IF he did purchase Epik, it isn’t clear that they still do. Also, the way the article was written omitting that in the same article that the Companies denied that Keen is an employee or owner suggested to me that there was ulterior motive in its creation.Dougieb (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate vote You cannot vote! on your own nomination, which is assumed as delete unless you add onto your rationale above. Nate • (chatter) 22:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware. My apologies. My rationale was that even if not deleted per my nom, then alternatively redirect, that is if anything at all. Thank you though.Dougieb (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Epik. This person is not the subject of substantial coverage by reliable secondary sources except where the sources are actually covering the company. Optionally also delete before redirecting, since having this article history isn't particularly helpful. JFHJr (㊟) 22:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rationales below. Thank you each for your perspectives. JFHJr (㊟) 05:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This subject does not appear to meet minimum notability standards. The primary or only citations of note are the Wired articles, and those alone seem insufficient. Consider: if the subject was mentioned positively in only a couple of articles like this, would this person merit having biographical articles? There's a much better case for Wikipedia biography for Chris Xu, founder of Shein, for instance -- but, he has no bio article here, either. While notability can be established with relatively few sources, it's typically established with more substantive references than this. There's a lot of what appears to be complete tangents here in the Afd discussion as to the concerns that there has been some COI involved in the nomination for deletion, but all of that seems extraneous to the question of whether the article should exist at all. Again, if the degree of promotion of the person in those articles were the same, but the overall sentiment was positive, would they alone be sufficient to base bio notability upon? Not at all. Those articles established a factoid about possible ownership that appears notable enough to mention in the Epik article, but it's not enough to flesh out an article about Keen. (Simply adding facts about the Registered Agents company instead of specifics about him is also not sufficient to flesh out his article.) Also, I do not see why this name should be a redirect for the Epik article as this is not an alternate name for it, nor would it be likely for someone seeking Keen to desire to be presented with Epik.WmLawson (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Given that some editors are now arguing for a Redirect option, I'm relisting this discussion for a few more days, perhaps a full week. Since there is a challenge to the article sources as being insufficient, a formal source analysis would be helpful to whomever closes this discussion. And while it's unusual for an editor to return after a decade away to nominate an article for deletion, some of these Keep opinions look like they are in reaction to suspicions about the nominator, instead of focusing on the merits of the article. If another editor had made this nomination, would you still advocate Keeping it? No accusations, I'm just posing the question. Also, I don't really see a BLP issue with this article as all of the "neo-Nazi" allusions are directed to the company's policies, not the owner or any other individual so they are not being made against a "living person" but a business.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only sources in the article that reference Keen at all are the two Wired stories. While I would agree that these would count toward the bare minimum on GNG, other factors argue against his notability: (1) Per WP:NSUSTAINED, we would want to see Keen's notability sustained over a longer period of time, not just the past month or so since the Wired coverage began to reference him. (2) Keen's notability, such as it is, seems to be related to Registered Agents Inc's purchase of Epik, so WP:BLP1E applies. He is by all (aka two in a single magazine) accounts a low-profile person, not accused of any crime, and that also argues against notability. (3) The two reliable sources provided on Keen provide very little details on his life and career, resulting in a non-encyclopedic stub-length piece that focuses mostly on his businesses. If those are notable, cover those, but the volume of coverage of Epik and Registered Agents Inc in this BLP makes it a WP:COATRACK. For these reasons, until there are more details on Keen reported by more reliable sources over a sustained period of time, this BLP should be deleted. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the newly-created Registered Agents Inc., where there is heavy overlap. I note that the page creator is the same. The existing Dan Keen page is primarily about the business rather than the person, and so the content is best included on a page focussing on the business. There are already links there to Epik. Klbrain (talk) 06:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that in the new Registered Agents Inc. page, it seems to focus again on Epik. Arguably, there is more about Epik in the first paragraph of the RAI page than there is about RAI. Again, it just smells to me like a hit piece and Keen being the owner still seems like only an allegation at this point. Maybe suspected over… disputed owner? Alleged owner? (Since the company denies it). Dougieb (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of his contributions of all time is changing all mentions of the official Communist Party of China/CPC, to the ethnicized misnomer, "Chinese Communist Party"/CCP. He uses his "twinkle" status to quickly revert all mentions of CPC back to the red scare-y version. Truly a loyal American Imperial Party Anti China patriot. Han75 (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think there is reasonable doubt against a redirect to Registered Agents Inc. but as a ATD I would swing that way over allowing this article to remain. This article is more about the companies than the intended subject. It falls short of even being an attempt at a biography but a is actually a resume which is Wikipedia's policy on What Wikipedia is not. According to the Wired source it is not clear who owns the companies. Since "Wired" is touted as a reliable source then there is doubt about the owner. Anonymity is not a good reason to create a BLP. It might fly for a long time or until some action initiates the piercing the corporate veil such as violating tax laws like failure to report "beneficial owner reports". A legal agent may protect an Undisclosed Principal until such time as the agent may be held responsible for actions of the principle. Two unnamed people identify the subject as owner. Nothing actually reliable there. A lawyer claims the subject is not the owner of either company. I think Wikipedia should bank more on the Wired source that there is an email from a lawyer that the subject does not own either company. The founder and owner of Registered Agents, according to two people familiar with the company, is a man named Dan Keen. In an email, a lawyer for Registered Agents Inc. says Keen is not the owner nor an employee of Registered Agents Inc. or Epik, and that he acted as a consultant in the acquisition. While Registered Agents Inc. might be confirmed as the owner of Epik LLC through a press release there is doubt about the subjects ownership. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Registered Agents Inc.: The only SIGCOV of Keen seems to be in the two Wired articles, which is not enough to meet GNG. However, Keen is a valid search term for RAI. From skimming both the RAI and Epik articles and their sources, Keen seems to be linked more to RAI than to Epik, although search results for (1) "Dan Keen" and "Registered Agents Inc." and (2) "Dan Keen" and "Epik" turned up very few results. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note that I'm not sure that RAI is notable. It only seems to have received SIGCOV in articles that are part of a series by a collaboration of reporters, which doesn't qualify as multiple sources for GNG purposes: Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think this article should remain given the current sourcing, so I would accept a redirect to Registered Agents for purposes of building consensus/closing. However my preference is delete. Dan Keen is mentioned only in the two Wired articles. In the "Far Right's Favorite Web Host" article, the entire reference to him is 1. His name and position (according to two former employees) 2. A denial that he is an employee or owner, but rather a "consultant" 3. A description as being "intensely private" with no website 4. Previously running a lawn care business. In my opinion, this is not SIGCOV, although it does meet the other requirements to count towards notability. The other Wired article is SIGCOV, with about a dozen paragraphs devoted to Keen's background and activities. No other source even mentions Keen. Given the state of the sourcing here, the subject is not notable and additionally there is a real chance of getting biographical information wrong, so delete is the better option. All of the sources discuss Registered Agents Inc. I am not certain that we have CORPDEPTH for them, so I am a bit reluctant to keep the redirect, but it a better option than keeping an article with this sourcing. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would redirect and REVDEL satisfy your concern RE the state of sourcing/getting biographical information wrong? voorts (talk/contributions) 04:51, 13 April 2024 (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.

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. The consensus here, relative to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies for deletion, is for deletion at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samarth Kulkarni

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Non-notable CEO of a notable company. All of the sources cited are about the company, apart from this paywalled article in Stat about him winning a "best biopharma CEO" ~~award~~ reader poll. He has appeared on television news to discuss the company and biotech more generally, but those are primary sources, and I couldn't find solid, significant coverage of him in reliable secondary sources to show that he's notable independent from the company. Wikishovel (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Health and fitness, Biology, Technology, and India. Wikishovel (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Wikishovel,

I sent a note on my Talk page but perhaps it's more relevant here. My vote is to keep Kulkarni, and I disagree that he's a non-notable CEO due to the sheer amount of media mentions he has--paywalled and non-paywalled, in affiliation with his tenure at CRISPR. I think he warrants a Wikipedia page alongside other biopharma CEOs of far less newsworthy companies, particularly since he's heading, as you mentioned, a notable company. Would it help if I added/provided different or additional secondary sources? I can have a look around and see what else is available on record. Nathan Evo (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes please: if you can find reliable sources with substantial coverage of him, rather than about the company, then please do add them. Wikishovel (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Enough coverage about the company found, nothing for this person. This is all I can find in a RS [13] that isn't a PR item; he is quoted in a brief paragraph of a few lines in an article about a conference. Nothing for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to CRISPR Therapeutics. - Altenmann >talk 19:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no in-depth coverage. failed WP:N. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added two additional sources underscoring his notability, principally as "one of the top 25 biotech CEOs of 2020" and "11 Asian-American Executives Shaping the Future of Biopharma." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan Evo (talk • contribs) 19:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Nathan Evo (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this xfd. [reply]
Keep: He has more coverage than many Wikipedia execs and certainly enough news mentions to belong here, particularly given that he's in the top slot of biotech CEOs. passed WP:N. Georgieam 14:38 31 March 2024 (UTC)— Georgieam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep: Enough coverage in media to be notable.--Afus199620 (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article appears to have been expanded since the last delete !vote was posted, although based on arguments made here the balance still favors deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He's notable as a biotech leader and has more than enough media coverage.--Homerseditor, 11:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in response to the recent posts endorsing the WP:REFBOMBing, here's a source analysis:

Source assessment table prepared by User:Wikishovel
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
CRISPR Therapeutics	Press release or paid placement	Press release	Press release, no byline, includes marketing phone numbers at bottom	✘ No
All About Belgaum	Press release or paid placement	News blog with no byline, obvious COI as it talks about his "proud parents"	user-submitted, not journalism	✘ No
Fierce Biotech	Press release or paid placement	Biotech news blog, no byline	Press release, no byline, includes line about "our vision" at end	✘ No
CRISPR bio	His bio on his company's website	Company bio	All companies publish bios of their senior mgt	✘ No
Scientific American	Well established magazine	Byline given, and editorial oversight clearly outlined on website	His name isn't mentioned anywhere in the article	✘ No
Time magazine	Well established magazine	Byline given, and editorial oversight clearly outlined on website	His name isn't mentioned anywhere in the article	✘ No
Forbes	Well established magazine	Byline given, editorial oversight clearly outlined on website	His name isn't mentioned anywhere in the article	✘ No
Fierce Pharma	Sister title of "Fierce Biotech" above, independence unclear	Byline given in this one, but reliability is unclear	His name isn't mentioned anywhere in the article	✘ No
Healthcare Technology Report	blog, unknown if it is user-submitted content, but it includes a posed photo, apparently from his company	blog, click-bait	One entry in a list on an SEO blog of the "top healthcare CEOs of 2020", with no explanation of inclusion criteria	✘ No
Timmerman Report	blog, unknown if it is user-submitted content, but it includes a posed photo, apparently from his company	a post by grad student on a biopharma blog of unknown reliability	One entry on a blog post about the "Asian Americans shaping the future of biopharma", with no explanation of inclusion criteria	✘ No
Centessa	His bio on his company's website	Company bio	Copypaste of his CRISPR Therapeutics company bio above	✘ No
Black Diamond	His bio on his company's website	Company bio	All companies publish bios of their senior mgt	✘ No
ReparerX	Board list on company website	Company bios	His name isn't mentioned on the page	✘ No
Marketscreener	Some sort of company listings website, might be independent	no editorial oversight or even contact info listed, might be reliable	directory listing simply confirms that he's head of a company	✘ No
Biotechnology Innovation Organization	membership listing page of an industry association	seems reliable from its "about" page etc	His name isn't mentioned in the list	✘ No
India New England News	clickbait news blog attempting to pass as a newspaper	probably user-generated content as it's mostly a paste of his company bio (and photo) above, otherwise it's paid placement	the American India Foundation is notable, but this post simply says he and another exec are being "honored at a gala", so the notability of the recognition is unclear	✘ No
STAT+	newspaper	has byline, editorial oversight	~ Some actual reportage here, but it's paywalled, and appears to be about him winning the newspaper's reader poll	~ Partial
CNBC	national TV network	national TV network	interview: primary source	✘ No
CNBC	national TV network	national TV network	interview: primary source	✘ No
WSJ	national newspaper	national newspaper	interview: primary source	✘ No
Cura Foundation	independent foundation with notable backers	interview by notable foundation	interview: primary source	✘ No
The Hill Events	The Hill is an established newspaper with well defined editorial oversight	interview during event sponsored by newspaper	interview: primary source	✘ No
Forbes	Forbes is an independent national newspaper...	...but per WP:FORBES they also publish "contributed content", and it's unclear whether this is Forbes' own content or "contributed".	In either case, this is still an interview, therefore a primary source	✘ No
FII Institute	Future Investment Initiative Institute is a government-sponsored group	interview during event sponsored by group	interview: primary source	✘ No
FT	Financial Times is a national newspaper	interview during event sponsored by group	interview: primary source	✘ No
CNBC	National TV network	news website of the TV network	trivial coverage of his contribution in a highlights summary of a panel discussion	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete. WP:NOTCV and WP:NOTWHOSWHO, routine coverage and interviews are insufficent to write an article from. I don't think the content should be kept in article history either, though I suppose if it is I wouldn't be too broken up about it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:28, 19 April 2024 (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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chimaobi C Mbataku

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

Non-notable businessperson who fails WP:GNG or any applicable SNG. Suspected UPE and COI going on here. There's no source that could establish GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Entertainment, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not much for Inclusion. Some what of inherent promotional article. Needs much sources to establish a stand alone notability. Simply no clarification of importance. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: As the article is a stub and would need much sources to establish a stand-alone notability.--Afí-afeti (talk) 06:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A google search brings up only news source about a company he appears to own, which appears to be mildly promotional in nature. As such, this article likely fails WP:GNG and, alongside the aforementioned promotional nature and possible COI, also fails WP:NOTPROMO. ArkHyena (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very few mentions (<10) when doing a search. Doesn't sound notable. Rrjmrrr (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:MILL. One good source by definition is not multiple sources for significant coverage. We have long agreed that "executive producer" is so common that it's not indication of independent notability from the film or TV show. Bearian (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2024 (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.

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 redirect‎ to 2024 United States Senate election in Wisconsin. There is a good case for arguing that this discussion should be closed as No consensus but taking in all comments, I'm closing this discussion as a Redirect to the election article. This will preserve article content in case his notability changes after the election but acknowledges those editors arguing for Delete who state that he presently isn't notable enough for a standalone article in main space. So, it's a bit of a compromise and I think a Redirect is more helpful for readers rather that moving the page to Draft space. If his situation changes after the election this summer, this discussion closure can be revisited. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Hovde

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL. Coverage is of his campaign and does not establish WP:GNG apart from his candidacy for office. Marquardtika (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Marquardtika (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Conservatism, Washington, D.C., and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Subject does not yet demonstrate notability outside of the context of the 2024 election that he is running in, making this a WP:BIO1E consideration. If he wins in November, he'll be notable. If he loses, will he really be? I don't think so. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as subject is currently de facto expected primary winner barring death or a complete collapse of their campaign before August; the article needs more development. Nate • (chatter) 20:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment Said subject has now been endorsed by 45; only noting this in case we have to relist, still looking to draftify and develop this. Nate • (chatter) 23:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination says the subject "Does not meet WP:NPOL," but that doesn't really tell us anything. That standard identifies cases where we can presume a politician is notable, but it doesn't say that other politicians are not notable. Nor is this a case of WP:BIO1E; by its own terms that rule ("cover the event, not the person") loosens considerably as the coverage of the event or person grows. Here, we're talking about sustained coverage of not only the race but of the subject himself.

Moreover, it's clear that the subject is notable for his involvement in a variety of endeavors with no substantial connection to the current campaign, such as:

70.167.90.50 (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Driving a dive bar out of business doesn't get you an article. Being in investment person isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A breakdown of the articles you cite: Rolling Stone: Coverage of a local real estate deal. Business Insider: The mention of Hovde Capital is trivial to the mention of Bill Ackman. That trivial mention is because of a New York Times guest column. New York Times: One-off guest columnist does not create notability under WP:AUTHOR. OC Register: A brief mention in the buying of a bankrupt builder in a local publication in a local area where Hovde is at least a part time resident. You are more than welcome to revise the article add these sources. Maybe it'll influence editors the article should not be redirected or deleted.--Mpen320 (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So it's PROMO. Outside of politics, he has barely a paragraph about his financial career, so I'm not seeing notability. He's not notable as a hedge fund person, there is only confirmation of political campaigns. Oaktree b (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject is notable as demonstrated through the over 22 sources cited. However the article needs work and should be fleshed out in regard to his business endeavors Microplastic Consumer (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Had this person become a perennial candidate, complicating an appropriate alternative to deletion?Djflem (talk) 06:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He has run for office twice--once in 2012 and once in 2024--so no. Marquardtika (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: article seems premature, could change as the campaign goes by. Though the article should definitely be deleted if he loses the primary in August, unless a suitable reason to keep it (or make a full article) emerges. Talthiel (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hovde has been in Wisconsin politics for longer than just 2024. He can also be considered a humanitarian, given his charity organization. I would also argue that Wikipedia is a site for information about people of importance. This page can be used to help people learn more about Hovde, not just as a politician but as a man as well. In short, Hovde is an important figure for his charity work and his political campaigns, and I argue his page should stay up as more people would continue to add to the page. AbsoluteKermity (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, delete and/or redirect. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they haven't already won — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one — but this article is failing to demonstrate sustained notability in other contexts besides non-winning election campaigns. The number of footnotes an article has is not a notability claim in and of itself, either, especially when a considerable number of them are primary sources that do not constitute support for notability — GNG is not just "count up the hits and keep anybody who's surpassed an arbitrary cutoff number", and takes into account the context of what any given source is "covering" the topic for, but the merely expected run of the mill campaign coverage in the context of an election is not a notability-securing context. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing the WP:NPOL rule is moot when you consider the criteria of "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." In Wisconsin, where I live, Hovde is gaining considerable media coverage, and has been positioned as the most likely to win the Republican primary. While yes, it is not certain that he will win, if he does win it will be contradictory to recreate this article for him again. I will also argue his campaign is not run of the mill as you suggested, but holds many interesting aspects, including his positions on immigration and alcohol. AbsoluteKermity (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" is for mayors and city councillors, not unelected candidates for anything. And even winning the primary still wouldn't be grounds for an article: the baseline for recreation would be winning the general election in November. Bearcat (talk) 03:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's not even a good redirect target as there's absolutely no point to this article apart from the fact they were a failed candidate and even includes elections he thought about running in, but didn't. Absolutely not notable enough. SportingFlyer T·C 23:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are way smaller stubs about less notable political figures on Wikipedia, so I think it has merit to stay, at least in a greatly restructured form. Serious discussion for deletion should wait until after the primary on August 13th, with him winning or losing being the reason to delete or not. If he wins, he becomes a major party's nominee in a heavily contested Senate race, making him a notable political figure for at least the 2024 cycle. Him winning the nomination also gives him more media attention, and therefore more robust citations and factoids for the article. If he loses, I am fine with deletion and rolling it under 2024 United States Senate election in Wisconsin page. Ultimately, we should wait until after the primary to make such a decision. Dillguy9 (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Other stuff existing is literally an argument to avoid.--Mpen320 (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per others Cannolorosa (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:NPOL as a failed political nominee in a single election. Is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Let'srun (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: he's currently the leading candidate for the Republican primary in Wisconsin, a state that elects a lot of Republicans. People will be looking him up. If he loses, we can delete it then. Mareino (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A US senate candidate is always of public interest and therefore notable. Considering that it is hard to get a comprehensive view of a candiate's stances and that campaign websites are inherently biased in favour of the candidate, it would be a loss to delete the article. 2003:E2:AF1B:5F01:9DA1:29C7:E339:C5D3 (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC) lars 01:38, 4 April 2024 (CET)[reply]

The relevant question isn't "is he in the current news cycle right now?" — it's "if he loses the election and then never does anything else, so that having been an unsuccessful candidate in an election is his peak notability for all time, then will people still be looking for information about him 20 or 30 or 50 years into the future?" We're writing history here, not news, and just being a candidate in an election is not grounds for permanent inclusion in an encyclopedia in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject has received substantial coverage in reliable sources and its reasonable to assume it will be sustained coverage as he's the Republican nominee for a highly competitive US senate race. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 23:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin should note that there is a semi-viral tweet directing people here, hence the sudden influx of people. EoRdE6^(Talk) 00:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Off-wiki link in question: [14] - Skipple ☎ 00:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Fits the notability guidelines. Multiple sources cited in the article demonstrate reliable, significant coverage independent of the subject. This includes NBC News, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, and HuffPost.--Panian513 00:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: As others have noted, he does not meet notability guidelines unless he wins. Mad Mismagius (talk) 11:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is not about the number of responses. The arguments and sources are not impressive. To keep such an article, make a stronger case based on police, reliable sources, and clear evidence of notability beyond simply running for office.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AbsoluteKermity

(Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 14:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Draftify: just echoing what others have said, but he has no notability whatsoever outside of the context of the election, which already has its own article and covers all necessary information. if he becomes a Senator, this can be revisited. Griffindaly (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In all likelihood, Eric Hovde will be the Republican Party's nominee for United States Senate, thus giving him notability for now. Having his page up will keep voters in Wisconsin informed about him throughout the election. If he loses the election, then deleting the page would be appropriate. RandomUserGuy1738 (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC
Delete There is no such thing as "notability for now" as it is not temporary. Even being the nominee doesn't meet WP:NPOL as he still would not be notable outside the campaign. If Hovde wins, then he would merit an article but he currently has not even won the primary. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Keep arguments are just special pleading not supported by references to Wikipedia's notablility guidelines. The general rule is that politicians don't get articles until they win, and insufficient evidence to justify a special case has been presented. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bernie Moreno isn't a politician, yet his page isn't up for deletion. MisterWeegee (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC) — MisterWeegee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Feel free to start Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernie Monero * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to 2024 United States Senate election in Wisconsin. We have in the past almost always redirected such articles about individual candidates. If consensus has changed, or we should take this as an exception, please convince me. Bearian (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, that is done in cases where the candidate wins the primary and is a nominee in the general election. Hovde is currently only a primary candidate. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep:~~ I come again to defend this. I don't see why the page should be taken down. Hovde is a businessman who also heads a charitable organization. If you argue he is not popular enough to notable enough to have a page, then I want to argue that it is hard to say what is and isn't notable. Via the WP:NPOL guidelines, a candidate must have gained considerable coverage.^[a]^[b]

Hovde covers most, if not all the bases for somebody to have a page. I don't see any clear reason why it would be logical to delete a page that is not harming anybody by staying up. Wikipedia was founded to have free information for all, and it's best we stay to that. A page about Hovde can help people learn about him, and give them primary sources to learn about his policies and his background. AbsoluteKermity (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

— Duplicate !vote: AbsoluteKermity (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]

Keep: I don't think we should be counting out Hovde just yet. It's very likely he'll win the Republican primary, and like others have said, if he wins the primary, but loses the general elections, then the page could be deleted. I don't see why the page has to be deleted just because he's "not someone notable." MisterWeegee (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually an argument for deletion, because we have a rule that once you're notable, you're always notable. If we'd delete him when he lost, that means he's not notable yet. SportingFlyer T·C 22:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And we aren't counting [him] out at all. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirectto 2024 United States Senate election in Wisconsin as a usual and appropriate outcome. (also everything per Bearian and Bearcat) There are many Wikipedia policies that explain suggest why this project should not be a repository of campaign material, including no requirement for fairness. --Enos733 (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States Senate election in Wisconsin or 2012 United States Senate election in Wisconsin. The article states that Eric Holvde is a candidate for statewide office, businessman, financier, and banker. First, WP:NPOL guidelines do not confer a presumption of notability onto candidates, but some candidates can meet GNG for their candidacies. Example candidates like Christine O'Donnell, Lar Daly, or Pro-Life (born Marvin Thomas Richardson) are a guide to what I am referring. Holvde's candidacy has received run of the mill coverage from national publications that any swing-state, statewide candidate would receive in a media climate where political hobbyists like me obsess over elections. It also over-relies on the AP article about his campaign further demonstrating the failure of significant coverage. This fails the significant coverage test. Sources should also be independent of the subject, for which the issues section fails. Anything that is not the AP article is his Twitter and his website. Businessman, financier, and banker, while all separate things, in layperson terms are redundant. If we take the extent of his business career as found in non-secondary sources via Google search at face-value, I cannot say it would fail GNG. However, that's not what the article is at present or has ever been. Nothing in any searches lead me to believe we should presume it can be established. The article also engages in a number of efforts to mask the lack of notability via "building a biography." Do we really need to know every time he chose not to run for office? That's ultimately trivial. Millions of people choose not to run every cycle. In the early life section, the bulk of it is information about his father who is not the subject of this article. Notability is not inherited by family ties alone. The likliehood he will be the Republican nominee is irrelevant as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We cannot have an article based on possible notability once election season really gets underway. Finally, as I always try to leave for candidate deletion discussions, an article about yourself is not a good thing.--Mpen320 (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References inserted by contributors

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More on redirect vs. draftify as an ATD please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Redirecting is more appropriate per Wikipedia:POLOUTCOMES. To quote POLOUTCOMES, they are not moved to user space for fear of establishing a precedent that any premature article about an as-yet-unelected candidate for office can be kept in draftspace pending election returns, effectively making draftspace a repository for campaign brochures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpen320 (talk • contribs)

Delete Per the terrible keep arguments presented above. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of people and events. Any candidate for statewide office will attract routine coverage. This does not equate to enduring notability. AusLondonder (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject does not, and indeed, cannot meet NPOL since he has never held elected office. He can, of course, be found notable per the general notability guideline, but I do not see significant coverage to support it. Would those supporting the article care to point to WP:THREE sources that best establish the subject's claim? Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:26, 19 April 2024 (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.

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. Not enough IRS, notability issues Less Unless (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajat Khare

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

I have tried to bring the article back to a neutral form according to wikipedia policies. But in a less friendly way, the article is back to a negative form (which is not in accordance with wikipedia policies. According to WP:BLP1E we should avoid keeping the article (because most sources describe the company the same and the topic is notable for an event). A range of sources can be classified under WP:DEPS, And some of the sources don't even mention the information, which raises a lot of questions at WP:NPOV. Ciudatul (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Ciudatul (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India, Delhi, and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we don't delete articles merely because they reflect badly on the subject. We reject them if the bad reflections cannot be justified by sourcing. Looking at the article's history, I see a slow-motion edit-war between Ciudatul and other editors, mostly relating to whether the sources are reliable, (Ciudatul removing references that they consider unreliable, others restoring). Questions of reliability of sourcing should go to WP:RSN. If you feel that the situation is unfair to a living individual, take it to WP:BLPN. AfD is not the correct place to settle this. Incidentally, it's not going to end well for the subject anyway, because even were this article deleted, it would almost certainly become a redirect to Appin where exactly the same dirty laundry will be aired in public view. Elemimele (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, but I didn't propose the article for deletion just because it reflects negatively on the subject. I can go back to the version proposed by the editors who created the article, which in my opinion is a disaster (from the history I have analysed that it was not even checked by a special rights editor). The article can be classified safely with WP:BLP1E. Thanks! Ciudatul (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't honestly see how else we can handle this. The problem is that (1) Appin has been going on for a long time (the bad press started in 2010 and the story continues to this day), while Khare is very closely linked with it; and (2) so far as I can make out, every time legal action succeeds in suppressing one article, it generates five more articles about the legal action and the suppression; this is a Hydra, where the legal action will never cut off all the heads. Point (1) makes it hard to argue for BLP1E, while point (2) ensures there will always be sources taking a negative viewpoint. We're here to reflect sources in an unbiased manner. Neutral doesn't mean "neither positive nor negative", it means representative of the sources, so if he becomes famous for being associated with potential suppression of news organisations, it's going to be hard to have an article that doesn't reflect badly on him. Elemimele (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article deletion is judged on notability, not neutrality, and there are countless WP:RS that attest to the notability of Khare and the Appin saga. You could argue that Khare is primarily notable for Appin, but the company has since rebranded and various parts have been spun off; if anything, I'd argue that Khare himself is more notable than the companies he has founded, so if they're going to the merged it should be the other way around. Jpatokal (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the notability, if you do an analysis then you can see that any priority source mentions company, so he is only notable based on the company that is under WP:BLP1E. Regarding neutrality I just added that there is no neutrality in the article. Which sums up that the article should be deleted or redirected to the company article. As far as I saw, it was you yourself who redirected the article to the company in the past. Ciudatul (talk) 09:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is enough information available in the company article. There is no point in creating a separate article.--Bexaendos (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jpatokal has adequate coverage from reliable sources meets WP:GNG.Tame Rhino (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one even questions that some sources come from notable newspapers. The problem is that most sources describe the company, and Rajat is notable only on the basis of the company according to WP:BLP1E. So what you say is not in accordance with wikipedia policies. Thanks! Ciudatul (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary duplication, all information can be found in the company article. GalianoP3 (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see much coverage for this person outside of the company, seems to be only notable in that context. I think what we have for the company is sufficient, this is largely pulling minimal facts from those articles to try and build notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a rather good rundown, but I'm not sure we could build a neutral article about the individual [15], archived here [16]. We'd have to build an article about the hacking/lawsuit, but that's not this... The person here is a part of the story. I doubt they meet criminal notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no standalone notability outside the company which already has its own article. LibStar (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2024 (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.

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. Less Unless (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khalil Ziade

AfDs for this article:

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

While language is an issue, I cannot find notability as an athlete or a businessman. Owning a team isn't a path to guaranteed notability, which appears to be the only claim to notability. Not opposed to a redirect to Philippe_Ziade_(businessman)#Personal_life

NB: I was closer of prior AfD. REFUNDed as a soft delete at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Khalil_Ziade (courtesy @Graeme Bartlett:) Star Mississippi 12:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Basketball, Lebanon, and United States of America. Star Mississippi 12:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search on Google News shows only press releases.^[17]-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would accept Draftify if the editor who wants it saved made a commitment to try to bring the article up to an acceptable standard.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Strictly press releases found. I don't see any sourcing we'd use for this person, likely PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please find reliable sources:

https://growthholdings.us/ One of the top real estate & company in US based in Las Vegas Nevada and contribute in construction, philanthropy, renewable energy and technology where Khalil is the Vice president.

https://www.finanznachrichten.de/nachrichten-2023-11/60783140-otonomus-vice-president-khalil-ziade-jr-sparks-unprecedented-demand-in-tulum-s-riviera-maya-200.htm His business in Tulum

http://leagues.uhlife.com/team_home.aspx?RegionID=10&ClubTeamID=7369&SeasonDivisionID=1482 Proof of he is basketball player

https://yatunisia.com/5857/ about his baskeball team that he launched

https://morocco-news.net/6387/ interview about his business

https://news-music.net/6625/ His contribution for the port explosion

I request to keep his page as Wikipedia is wide encyclopedia with lot of database and many Lebanese less popular have pages. Please to keep the same message to have the largest database for all the countries and for the different field. 176.203.6.111 (talk) 04:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't worry if kept or deleted. 176.203.152.140 gave this statement in their request to have it back: "The person really exist and is Lebanese businessman and fan of Basketball Player and used to play in Antranik, As businessman is the vice president of growth construction owned by his brother Phillipe, He is entrepreneur and philanthropist and one of the richest Lebanese which family are billionaire ( 4 Billion dollar estimated). I believe that the request of page or article deletion is by some Rival. I request for restoring the page as wikipedia is wide encyclopedia with lot of datas and database and many lebanese less popular have pages and articles such sports player playing in lower divison, decent actor in low Lebanese series, writer which instructed in my university and not known as an author or writer. The good thing about wikipedia is the largest information and database, please keep the same message especially Khalil and Phillipe are investors and well know business in Lebanon which are expanding. If anything controversy Wikipedia will expose it with reference but why to delete the page." Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please find the reliable notability you requested:

Businessmen:

https://www.finanznachrichten.de/nachrichten-2023-11/60783140-otonomus-vice-president-khalil-ziade-jr-sparks-unprecedented-demand-in-tulum-s-riviera-maya-200.htm His business in Tulum

https://group-mbc.com/6268/

https://group-mbc.com/6501/

https://group-mbc.com/6352/

https://group-mbc.com/6229/

https://group-mbc.com/5284/

https://group-mbc.com/4768/

Detailed article about the businessman an entrepreneur by one of the famous website in the Arab region

https://addiyar.com/article/1921376-%D8%AE%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%84-%D8%B2%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%A9-%D9%86%D8%AD%D9%86-%D9%85%D9%82%D8%A8%D9%84%D9%88%D9%86-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%A3%D9%87%D9%85-%D9%88%D8%A3%D8%AE%D8%B7%D8%B1-%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%AD%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%84%D8%A9-%D9%84%D9%84%D9%86%D9%87%D9%88%D8%B6-%D8%A8%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%86%D9%8A-%D9%84%D8%A8%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%86-%D9%88%D8%AB%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%B7%D8%A7%D8%B9 Detailed article by Aldiyyar one the most famous newspaper in Lebanon

https://growthholdings.us/ His company with is his brothers One of the top real estate & company in US based in Las Vegas Nevada and contribute in construction, philanthropy, renewable energy and technology

Athlete:

http://leagues.uhlife.com/team_home.aspx?RegionID=10&ClubTeamID=7369&SeasonDivisionID=1482

https://www.facebook.com/arabasket/photos/a.1483283625273139/2972776569657163/

https://www.nidaalwatan.com/article/26483-%D8%A3%D8%AE%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%B3%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B9%D8%A9-2%D8%A3%D9%86%D8%A3%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%8A%D9%87%D9%8A%D9%83%D8%AB%D9%81-%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%B6%D9%8A%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%87

https://group-mbc.com/5604/ Hon.President and major share holder which lead the team from lower division to the Lebanese top league division which now playing under the name of NSA and compete in the Basketball Lebanese top division where basketball is very popular in Lebanon which the league is one of the strongest league in Asia 176.203.6.111 (talk) 07:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Lebanese newspaper you found an article in is Ad-Diyar. Would you be willing to spend some time improving the article, if the article were moved to draft as Draft:Khalil Ziade? If you are going to do that, you need to learn how to present citations better (see example).

"خليل زيادة: نحن مُقبلون على أهم وأخطر مرحلة للنهوض بنادي "ابني لبنان" وثورة القطاع الرياضي هدفنا" [Khalil Ziadeh: We are entering the most important and dangerous stage for the advancement of the Ibn Lebanon” club, and the sports sector revolution is our goal.]. Ad-Diyar (in Arabic). 28 July 2021. Archived from the original on 15 August 2021.

Notice that it helps to have the URL presented in the original script, though bot-editor tools are likely to mess it up.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support from editors for this article to be draftified. I hope the IP editor realizes that they will need to work to improve it and submit it to WP:AFC for review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need some feedback on earlier relisting comment or on this article in general from other editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (for now, might change) – All the sources, except for this one because I can't see the whole article, are interviews, press releases, about what this subject says (not about this subject), or mentions, which fall short of WP:SIGCOV. In addition I'm not convinced the group-mbc.com website is reliable at all. I can't find material online either. If the Ad-Diyar article has significant coverage (apparently you have to ask the publication) I would be okay with draftify. TLA^tlak 02:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Ad-Diyar article is primarily about the "Ibn Lebanon" club. Khalil Ziade is mentioned six times (either by name or as "he") and the article has two quotations from him. I have added an archive link to the citation template above. When I looked at the article on 20 March, it was freely available. If you cannot read Arabic, you can paste the text from the web archive version into Google Translate ("Ibn Lebanon" means "son of Lebanon" - this seems to confuse Google Translate). Note that pasting the archive URL into Google Translate does not work.-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. From what I see, there isn't enough about the subject specifically, so I'm at a firm delete now unless someone somehow finds something. TLA^tlak 16:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could only find press releases but no evidence of multiple coverage from reliable independent sources. Contributor892z (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2024 (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.

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. A source review would have been very helpful in this discussion but none was provided by participants. But there is a consensus to Keep and no additional support for Deletion. I don't think a third relist would result in a clearer consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayyur Girotra

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG, there are some announcements kind of sources, routine coverage and non-independent interview, but I fail to see any real independent SIGCOV about the person. Tehonk (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, England, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: When I searched for this person on many places (like: Google, Wing, Yandex, and DuckDuckGo), I found many news articles. Based on that, the subject is clearly passing WP:THREE. The article can be tagged to improve current sourcing though. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 11:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please show that WP:THREE, simply saying there are WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a valid argument. Tehonk (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aha'n why not. Here are your WP:THREE. 1, 2, 3. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1 and 3 are just interviews so they are not independent. 2 could be OK. So I don't think this is passing THREE. I'll check the below sources later. Tehonk (talk) 03:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know 1 & 3 i gave are interviews but not everything in those interviews is solely from the subject. There's some independent text in there too, like the first paragraph. These sources are reliable and credible. Anyway, i found some additional sources that are secondary independent reliable that shows the subject's significance as a designer like [18], [19], [20] Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject appears to be a notable designer. He is the only person from South Asia selected to kick off New York's prestigious LGBTQ+ Pride 2024, and he is among the only 14 designers to exhibit at the French European Fashion Week, which gained a lot of media attention. [21][22], [23], [24], [25] Various leading media houses extensively covered him. [26]. Google News Search yielded lots of hits from reliable secondary sources passing WP:BASIC. Wasilatlovekesy (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, seeking some feedback on the sources brought to this discussion (and any others that can be mentioned). It's not sufficient to say that you did a search and found sources, you must share what they are.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided above, passes WP:BASIC.Sk1728 (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per above. Actual analysis of sources would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Sufficient sources provided above by Youknowwhoistheman and Wasilatlovekesy . Twinkle1990 (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2024 (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.

[1] ttps://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/04/05/eric-hovde-abortion-wisconsin/

[2] ttps://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/finance-and-economy/2956070/wisconsin-senate-eric-hovde-bipartisan-commission-debt-trap/

[a]

[b]