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. I don't see a need to keep relisting this. Most likely the article can be salvaged, but if not, it can be nominated again. Aervanath ( talk) 16:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Julian Wheatland

Julian Wheatland (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

A borderline case, but I think the subject of this article fails WP:BASIC. I don't think being CEO of Cambridge Analytica, however notorious it may be, is enough for WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE. He's been an exec at a number of firms, so a potential redirect would face a WP:XY problem. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 23:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 23:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 23:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. He was featured in the Netflix documentary The Great Hack (see The_Great_Hack#Cast) and has received media coverage in connection with the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal. For example, he was highlighted in debates in parliament on the connections between the company and the Conservatives, so it's more his role in connection with the broader affair than the business position in itself that establishes his notability. (The same would probably be true for other key people involved with that affair, e.g. Nix, Kaiser, Wylie etc.) Although SCL liked to operate in the shadows, I think the chairman of a company that sets out to influence hundreds of elections globally is sufficiently relevant. (Also note that the article includes far more sources now than when it was nominated for deletion). -- Skafjr75 ( talk) 23:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC) reply

  Skafjr75, See WP:BLP1E. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 00:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC) reply

  It seems to me that there is some public interest in him, even beyond Cambridge Analytica: [1] -- Skafjr75 ( talk) 00:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC) reply

  Can we redirect to the company? Someone may search for it. Spudlace ( talk) 03:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC) reply

  Spudlace, He's been an executive at Cambridge Analytica and SCL Group, so there may be an WP:XY issue, but if it seems he's best known for association with Cambridge Analytica a redirect there would seem reasonable as an ATD. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 04:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC) reply

  If the article is to be redirected, I think a redirect to Cambridge Analytica is a reasonable option, although I still think there are enough sources to justify a stand-alone article in this case. -- Skafjr75 ( talk) 06:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC) reply

  However, Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal could also be a suitable target for a possible redirect, since it sort of covers both SCL and CA. -- Skafjr75 ( talk) 06:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep - public figure involved in a scandal. Since 2007, I have had the same opinion that people involved in political scandals almost always are notable. 15:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian ( talk • contribs)

• Delete. Basically a smear article. "Involved in scandal" and no detail how he was involved, whether his role was significant or just a scapegoat. No prejudice against recreation. Staszek Lem ( talk) 03:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep In a WP:BEFORE search on Google multiple reliable and independent sources are found specifically about Julian and his career. Per WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS Julian is notable. Are they clouded in controversy? Absolutely! Most actions considered scandalous are surrounded by controversy. As far as the tone of the article goes, it only speaks to what the sources provide. AfD is not article clean-up. If there are other views and sources to back it up then edit the article to include these POV's and provide the sources. Wikipedia is only concerned with WP:GNG which the subject passes. -- Tsistunagiska ( talk) 12:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Userify or Draftify. This isn't a usable biography. A biography has to give some sort of context to a person life, like the basic elements of birth , education, positions. I think a ceo of a major company will almost always have enough sources to justify inclusion,; whether it should be a fixed rule is a difficult question, becauseit dependso n the notability fo the company. If the notability is from the scandal, his role in it must be actually explained, properly and with good sources, according to the requirements of WP:BLP, which is policy and takes precdence over the notability guideline. DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 31 October 2020 (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.