- 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. Mz7 ( talk) 04:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Remy W. Trafelet
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Remy W. Trafelet ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Some minor coverage regarding business, but no secondary BLP sources. scope_creep Talk 17:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- puddleglum 2.0 17:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- puddleglum 2.0 17:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose/Keep. Subject is featured in full-length articles ( WP:RS) from The New York Times, Financial Times, Institutional Investor, and in print in the industry journal Absolute Return. WP:GNG He is notable for his business activity, particularly during the early-mid 2000s, but also in the 2010s, with more local-level coverage in the past two years. Minor coverage was used to flesh out the article, not to establish notability. -- TardyMarmot ( talk) 18:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin: TardyMarmot ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. scope_creep Talk 19:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete can't find anything notable about him, PR -- Devokewater @ 12:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep - there are reliable sources already in the article, such as the New York Times, but whether they are significant coverage overall is open to debate. Bearian ( talk) 20:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 01:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 01:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete It seems like all the sources are about other things besides this person and that he is only mentioned extremely briefly in them. What there is about him is also extremely trivial. So, there isn't the in-depth coverage that's needed for this person to be notable. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 01:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Anybody else commenting here should be sure to read the coverage in the New York Times about this person, which goes on for paragraph after paragraph, and easily exceeds the threshold of significant coverage. The Naples Daily Times coverage may not be in as impressive a publication but their coverage is significant as well and that paper appears to be reliable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: The New York Times article, " High-Flying Hedge Fund Falls Back to Earth", is indeed significant coverage of Trafelet. It's quite a long article entirely focused on him. I'm surprised that other participants seem to discount this coverage. — Toughpigs ( talk) 20:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
- Personally I'm not discounting it, but as everyone here (especially you) should know it takes "multiple" in-depth sources for something to be notable and last I checked the single New York Times article isn't "multiple" in-depth sources. No matter how in-depth it is. Adamant1 ( talk) 23:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep unclear rationale ft and nyt both in depth. Ft is also highly reliable and significant. After seeing these two I stopped - one profile maybe luck, two profiles clearly notable. PainProf ( talk) 02:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- I wasn't able to read the Financial Times article since I don't have a subscription. I take it you do since your saying it's in-depth? If so, maybe I'll consult you the next time an article that's referenced to them comes up in an AfD. Although generally I don't think we should take a single persons word on something when it comes if something should be deleted or not. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 02:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, per sourcing identified so far. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 01:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- 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.