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.
Note that 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 links to other discussions (
prod,
CfD,
TfD etc.) related to Businesspeople.
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:
Only once of the sources here is actual news coverage (Techcrunch) and it has a
WP:COI issue, the rest are just
WP:ROUTINE mentions of him.
Allan Nonymous (
talk) 03:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. I found no coverage in
WP:LIBRARY under various permutations of name + associated term ("poet", "rentlord", "Evidence of the Senses", "Angeli, Archangeli", etc.).
Jfire (
talk) 04:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Note Please note that
Tfreston (
talk·contribs), who purports to be the subject, began to edit the article in July 2016 and has virtually stripped out all of the sources;
this is the last edit before they became involved, and
this edit from several months ago was the last before the subject stripped out all sources, including about basic biographical information such as children and marriage. This may be a case where COI has to be flagged and the mentioned editor may have to be blocked from editing their own article, which had proper sources before then. @
Ltbdl:, can you let me know what you think of what I presented? Nate•(
chatter) 18:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep but restore to pre-COI'd state. With profiles in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and CNBC, he's clearly notable, we just have to keep him from trying to write an autobiography.
Jfire (
talk) 03:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Most news seems to be about his company Flynn Group and its restaurants/ acquisitions rather than him. He was briefly in the news regarding the California minimum wage issues and seems to be only known for that.
Shinadamina (
talk) 05:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep There is substantial coverage out there about Flynn. The article just has to be expanded.
Thriley (
talk) 13:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete I agree with the nominator, most of the articles are about his company or are primary with quotations.
The Forbes article and
QSR Magazine seem to be the best coverage, but they both contain lot's of quotations and based on primary info.
Hkkingg (
talk) 15:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The Forbes article is OK, but Stanford is an interview.
Yolandagonzales (
talk) 20:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete -
Forbes articles looks OK.
Stanford is an interview. Most other sources are about the company. Notability is not inherited. We should consider making a page for his company The Flynn Group.
Yolandagonzales (
talk) 20:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. The company this individual founded, not the founder himself, is what is notable here. A review of the citations here only shows there are few that provide in-depth coverage of this individual.
Zakaria ښه راغلاست (
talk) 23:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
KeepBakhtar40, as a fairly inexperienced editor (131 edits), you need to read
WP:BEFORE, "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources". It is not just the sources actually used in the article that count. A simple Google search for Tarang Jain Varroc (he owns 86%) gives us:
Keep. Meets
WP:GNG and
WP:BIO. Very reliable sources like forbes have enough coverage on the well known billionaire from India. Google search will also display results with many reliable sources on the subject.
RangersRus (
talk) 13:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. based on presented citations above this person will meet
WP:GNG and
WP:BIO.
Hkkingg (
talk) 15:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: I've now restored the AfD tag from the article, since it was removed by
Oompaloompa1971 for apparently no reason.
CycloneYoristalk! 00:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
The book notes about Bruce Lou: "As a student, he’d done quiz bowl, the team trivia competition often found in scholastic settings, and won the National History Bee—a contest organized by David Madden, who was a nineteen-time Jeopardy! champion in 2005—and Lou found himself missing the competition."
The book notes: "As Watson entered crunch time, Jeopardy! granted IBM access to notable champions from years past, including nineteen-time winner David Madden, whose streak was second only to Ken Jennings’s at the time. Madden played two games against Watson.“"
The book notes: "A number of Jeopardy! alumni’s new chapters, perhaps unsurprisingly, have to do with trivia. David Madden was a twentythree-year-old grad student when he first played, and as he left the studio after his twentieth game with vouchers totaling more than $430,000, he wasn’t sure what he wanted to do. ... A quiz bowl alum, he ultimately used his winnings as seed money to found International Academic Competitions, which hosts, among other things, the annual National History Bee and Bowl."
The book notes: "David Madden, the nineteen-time champion, remembers auditioning in the Jeopardy! studio in May 2004. With him was a friend named Jeff Hoppes, who was called to be on the show just before Madden and ultimately became one of the final victims of Ken Jennings, coming in second in the seventieth game of Jennings's seventy-four-game winning streak. Hoppes, Madden says, first played quiz bowl in high school when he was a classmate of Rutter's, and then went on to marry eventual six-time Jeopardy! champion and Tournament of Champions runner-up Larissa Kelly. Madden, Rutter, and Kelly made up the winning team in the All-Star Games."
The article notes: "This Bergen County person is competing in the "Jeopardy!" All-Star Games this week. ... Who is former champion David Madden of Ridgewood? Among the former champs will be Madden, a member of Team Brad, one of the six trios of top players in the tournament. ... Back in 2005-2006, Madden won $432,400 in 19 rounds in a row — the third-longest winning streak in the game — earning a rank among "Jeopardy!" top players. ... Madden founded International Academic Competitions, running about a dozen contests in 30 countries, including the National History Bee and National Science Bee, hosting tens of thousands of students. Former players have gone on to "Jeopardy!" teen and college tournaments, and five staffers have won on the show."
The article notes: "Ridgewood native David Madden and his partners on Team Brad won a decisive victory on "Jeopardy!" All-Star Games, and the $1 million prize. ... Madden earned a spot on the All-Star Games roster by winning 19 rounds in a row in 2005 and 2006, the third-longest winning streak in the show’s history. He was “drafted” by team leader Brad Rutter, along with Madden’s former Princeton classmate, Larissa Kelly. ... Madden used some of his first "Jeopardy!" winnings, a $432,400 pot, as start-up money, going on to found International Academic Competitions."
The article notes: "Former Ridgewood resident David Madden hit the jackpot this month, but it wasn't in the lottery. Madden, a 1999 graduate of Ridgewood High, had a 19-day winning streak on "Jeopardy!" and walked away from the game show with more than $430,000 in cash. Madden, 24, a graduate of Princeton University, lost to a 24-year-old self-employed musician from Decatur, Ga. The episode aired earlier this week. ... Madden, who now lives in Berlin, is studying for an advanced degree in international relations at Frei University."
The article notes: "International Academic Competitions was started in 2010 by Jeopardy winner David Madden. He and his wife, Nolwenn Madden act as executive directors and they expanded the competition globally in 2012."
The article notes: "With the goal of engaging students more deeply in history, David Madden, a “Jeopardy” champion and former high school and college quiz-bowl player, established the National History Bee & Bowl in 2010. Now in about 2,000 schools—elementary through high—individual Bee competitions and Bowl events are held throughout the country. Mr. Madden, 31, discovered there was plenty of demand."
The article notes: "Montana high school history buffs can thank David Madden’s 19-day winning streak on the game show “Jeopardy!” nine years ago for the chance to show off their own knowledge Saturday at Skyview High School. Madden, 32, is founder and executive director of the National History Bee and Bowl, an individual and team competition with about 50,000 participants in more than 200 places around the country and overseas, too. About 60 students competed all day Saturday in the state championship held in Skyview’s theater. ... Madden, a graduate of Princeton University, founded the organization four years ago on his more than $400,000 in winnings on America’s most famous quiz show."
The article notes: "National History Bowl and Bee, a private, for-profit startup company, is based in Ridgewood, N.J., where owner David Madden is from. The company conducted a pilot competition there in May. In 2005, Madden reigned in a 20-game run on “Jeopardy!,” the second-longest ever after Ken Jennings, who had a 74-game winning streak."
The article notes: ""Jeopardy" fans remember him as the calculating young trivia expert who won 19 times on the game show and left with winnings more than $442,000, in part because he sought out the "Daily Double" early to maximize his cash. Now David Madden, 26, is crunching numbers for a different reason: He's hiking 3,000 miles to help raise money for a group that offers free and low-cost lodging to hospitalized soldiers and their families."
Which of these refs is
WP:SIGCOV on the subject in a major regional/national media outlet - none.
No main regional or national American news outlet thinks he is notable enough to do a piece on him - if they don't think he is notable, why do we?
Passing mentions, and mostly for the BLP1E, in small media outlets, is not the
General notability guideline. If that was the case we could get rid of BLP1E as a guideline as most cases have such coverage.
Aszx5000 (
talk) 08:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The subject received significant coverage in 2005, 2008, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2019, 2020, and 2023. A person who falls under
WP:BLP1E does not receive sustained significant coverage over 18 years for his activities.
He was a nineteen-time Jeopardy! champion in 2005. He founded the International Academic Competitions, which hosts the annual National History Bee and Bowl. He competed in and with his partners won the "Jeopardy!" All-Star Games in 2019. A person who has received significant coverage for multiple events does not fall under
WP:BLP1E.
But he hasn't received any significant coverage. If
WP:GNG was "significant number of passing mentions in non-national/regional sources", then he would be a keep. But the requirement is for "significant coverage", and in quality sources (of which there is also none).
I could create an AI to scan 3rd tier US media to find names briefly mentioned (many of which will have a BLP1E element), and I could create 1 million more Wikipedia BLPs in the morning, but I would probably be in ANI shortly after.
No encyclopedia outside of Jeopardy! fan sites, will ever have an article on this subject. His entry on
List of Jeopardy! contestants#David Madden captures everything that is notable about his BLP1E.
Aszx5000 (
talk) 09:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: There is no requirement on
WP:SIGCOV for sources to be "a major regional/national media outlet"; topics can be covered locally and still be notable.
WP:NOTPAPER. —
Ost (
talk) 21:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep sourcing identified by Cunard is lasting and diverse in its source markets. I think this is beyond BLP1E territory.
StarMississippi 02:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Press Releases and announcements. Most of the news is about his firm. The news are about the company. Or it will be better to Redirect this article on
Housing.com.
Bakhtar40 (
talk) 15:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:SIGCOV. References are atrocious and consist mostly interviews, passing mentions and tangenital links and profiles. scope_creepTalk 14:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Has at least 3 solid GNG references. I didn't review all 57 references, but if some or even many have the problems described in the nom, that is not a reason to delete the article. Sincerely, North8000 (
talk) 15:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I'll look at the references, all of them this weekend, including the 3 supposed good references on a 30k article with close to 60 references, suffering from
WP:CITEKILL. scope_creepTalk 15:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
keep a very well known docial activist who had asignificant impact on the protests in Israel
Hila Livne (
talk) 16:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
keep. A known activist and the article has enough references.
Danny-w (
talk) 16:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This editor hasn't edited for months and magically appears now for some reason. scope_creepTalk 17:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
*Comment Seems to a lot of canvassing going on here, from Hebrew speaking Jewish editors again, espousing the same arguments I've heard before about being fanstastically well known and article has enough references. We will find out.scope_creepTalk 16:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Seems as though tag teaming is going on. I might have to take you all to
WP:ANI, including the Hebrew admin, except North8000. This behaviour is probably disruptive. scope_creepTalk 17:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Strike your comment, which violates
WP:CIVILITY and
WP:AGF. The religion and nationality of other editors is irrelevant, as are evidence-free charges of canvassing.
Longhornsg (
talk) 17:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
User:Scope creep: I would like to repeat Longhornsg's request. Strike your comment. It comes across as ad hominem and racist. It has no place in an AfD. You have made several additional comments to this AfD without addressing it. Do not continue to comment here while failing to address this. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 02:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It is not meant to be racist. I've struck the comment, but it still looks like canvassing and this is the 20th Afd where I've seen this behaviour. scope_creepTalk 07:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Are all the sources perfect? Absolutely not, the article needs work. Does coverage of the article topic in RS satisfy
WP:GNG? Yes.
Longhornsg (
talk) 17:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The article was reviewed at Afc by 4 seperate editors who found it wanting before I rejected it. To say it needs work, is the understatement of the century. scope_creepTalk 17:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Well-known activist. The very fact that he has been interviewed repeatedly by the mainstream press is convincing evidence of notability. Non-notable people are not sought for interviews. Moreover, there is no rule against using the content of interviews in BLPs. The strictest rule is
WP:ABOUTSELF which allows such material.
Zerotalk 14:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Your a bit out of date, aren't you. Certainly your allowed to use interviews in biographical article, but per consensus there must be other supporting coverage. It is a list of interviews and nothing else. Anybody can get interviewed by anybody and make a list of interviews. scope_creepTalk 14:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It is simply not true that anyone can be interviewed multiple times by the press. And you need to read
WP:BLUDGEON (and learn how to spell "you're").
Zerotalk 15:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Lets looks at the references, to find these three elusive
WP:SECONDARY sources.
Ref 1
[1] This is exclusive interview. Not independent.
Out of the 15 references in the first block, the majority of which are interviews. So nothing to prove any long term viability for this
WP:BLP article. scope_creepTalk 18:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - Following references are solid and satisfy
WP:GNG:
Kindly retract your deletion request. --
Omer Toledano (
talk) 18:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for posting these @
Omer Toledano:. I will take a look at them.
Ref 32 This is a business interview style article for a new business by Dror, based in Shanghai. It is not idependent.
Ref 33 This is also a business style interview with Dror that comes under
WP:NCORP as part of PR branding drive for his new company in Shanghai. It is not independent either. Its is him talking.
Ref 30 This is another PR style article with no byline, promoting the business. It is not independent.
None of these are independent. They are not valid sources for a
WP:THREE exercise. This is a
WP:BLP tha must pass
WP:BIO to remain on Wikipedia.
WP:BLP states, "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." Not one of these 19 sources can satisfy notability to prove it. They are not independent, they are not in-depth and they are not significant. I'll look at the second block. scope_creepTalk 19:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
They satisfy
WP:GNG and that is sufficient enough. Kindly retract your deletion request. --
Omer Toledano (
talk) 19:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Looking at the 2nd tranche of references:
Comment Some discussions mentioned requirements from
WP:NCORPWP:ORGIND and
WP:SIRS. These are requirements for using special Notability Guideline "way in" for Companies/Organizations. This is an article about a person, not a company or organization. The applicable standards would be to pass either the sourcing
WP:GNG (the center of the discussion here) or the people SNG
Wikipedia:Notability (people) (not discussed here). Sincerely, North8000 (
talk) 19:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
North8000: The article mixes
WP:BLP and promotes a stong business content via PR which are pure spam links and that one the reason that it was repeatedly declined continuously on
WP:AFC. It has been established practice since about 2018 and is consensus to note these when it fails a policy, even if its
WP:NCORP. The PR spam link reference make up a tiny number, less than 3-5% of the total. There not independent. scope_creepTalk 19:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Thanks for posting these @
Omer Toledano: in the spirit they are intended. I will take a look at them.
Ref 32 This is a business interview style article for a new business by Dror, based in Shanghai. It is a promotional PR piece and is not independent.It is a
WP:SPS source.
Ref 33 This is also a business style interview with Dror that comes under
WP:NCORP as part of PR branding drive for his new company in Shanghai. It is not independent either.
Ref 30 This is another PR style article with no byline, promoting the business. It is non-rs.
None of these are independent. They are not valid sources for a
WP:THREE exercise. This is a
WP:BLP tha must pass
WP:BIO to remain on Wikipedia.
WP:BLP states, "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." Not one of these 19 sources can satisfy notability to prove it. They are not independent, they are not in-depth and they are not significant. I'll look at the second block. scope_creepTalk 19:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Looking at the 2nd tranche of references:
Ref 17
[17] Another interview. Its not independent.
Ref 18
[18] Another interview. Seems he was the bodyguard of Netanyahu.
Ref 32 Described above as PR that fails. It is a
WP:SPS source.
Ref 34 Non-rs
Ref 35
[26] That is a press-release. Fails
WP:SIRS.
Ref 36
[27] That is a routine annoucenent of partnership that fails
WP:CORPDEPTH.
So another block of junk reference. Not one of them is a
WP:SECONDARY source. Some passing mentions, lots of interviews, a lot of business PR and not one that satisfies
WP:BIO or
WP:SIGCOV. The article is a complete crock. (edit conflict) scope_creepTalk 19:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment There has been linking to essays, guidelines, and policies which I feel in several cases has been incorrect regarding what they are, their applicability (including the context of where they came from) and interpretations of them. Other than to note that, I don't plan to get deeper in on them individually. IMO the core question is whether the topic/article has the sources to comply with a customary application of
WP:GNG Sincerely, North8000 (
talk) 20:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I've removed the
WP:NCORP mentions per discussion, although the businesses are heavily promoted in the article. The rest of the reference in the 3rd tranche are of equally poor references, made up of profiles, interviews, podcast and lots of non-rs refs. It none of secondary sourcing needed to prove the person is notable per
WP:BIO. Of the three criteria in
WP:BIO, this person fails all of them. Up until Dror started to protest which was quite recent, he was invisible. Its all of the moment. scope_creepTalk 14:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Lacks significant coverage, though his company Design Projects is an extremely generic name. No possible redirect as his company does not have an article. He seems to have worked mostly on B movies.
—KaliforniykaHi! 01:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Design Projects first client was Universal Pictures, and also did advertising, design and packaging for 20th Century Fox, Warner Home Video, Columbia Pictures, as well as international distributors, starting with Best International Films and Producers Sales Organizations, and including Goldcrest and ad campaigns for Sanrio Films while they had a Los Angeles branch office.
It also created ad campaigns for many independent film distributors, such as Group One, New World, Film Ventures International. We also
Prior to 1978, I worked as a freelance designer for Universal Pictures, Filmways, as well as Universal Music.
Delete: Hospital parking executives are not notable, even what's used for sourcing now is simple confirmation of employment. I don't find anything about this person.
Oaktree b (
talk) 20:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. There were
attempts to speedy delete this article in 2012 when it was created. It has not improved. I don't know why it was retained at that time but it is clearly promotional and does not meet GNG.
Lamona (
talk) 15:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:MILL and
WP:SIGCOV. There are just no sources that show this person is notable. A CEO is never notable per se - there are tens of thousands of similarly situated persons.
Bearian (
talk) 18:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Not a notable enough person for an article. Fails
WP:NBIO - barely any coverage in reliable secondary sources.
Kk.urban (
talk) 17:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Zero media coverage. Being a hard-working individual isn't helping notability and withdrawing from an election isn't notable either. This is PROMO. Heck, it's sourced to the Better Business Bureau, a patents database and government websites, none of which help notability. Could have almost speedied this.
Oaktree b (
talk) 19:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete sourced entirely by non-
WP:RS sources. Best,
GPL93 (
talk) 12:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I would prefer this not get speedied, just so we have a deletion discussion to point to for G4.
* Pppery *it has begun... 20:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete Couldn't find any news coverage anywhere It appears like that most of the sources are given from our own website.
Shabh (
talk) 3:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Ok look, there's been a bunch of back and forth on this article, including the previous nomination being overturned from keep to no consensus. I've done some digging on the subject, and here's my conclusions:
1. This individual has not won a Guinness World Record. This appears to be a miscited claim from them saying they had submitted a world record attempt for "fastest created movie" for creating a 3 minute animated movie in 10 hours. This attempt was not recorded by the Guinness Book of World Records. In the
previous nomination, it was commented by several keep voters that the 3rd source in this article is from a reliable source. Given that they have printed this very simply false claim in the second sentence, I propose it be disregarded.
3.
WP:NEWSORGINDIA was not mentioned in the previous nomination, but I would like to comment that I think it makes this specific claim of notability extra dubious.
No ill will here, she seems like a smart woman making a good way in the world, but this marketing stunt is her *only* source of notability. It seems like it will be very difficult to write an encyclopaedic article about her because the only sources covering her are local puff pieces about how great she is. BrigadierG (
talk) 22:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: We literally just closed this less than 3 weeks ago. Let it rest for a bit. There is nothing that's changed in a month. Any "untruths" lets call them (as mentioned above), can be removed from the article by edit, not be deletion.
Oaktree b (
talk) 00:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The discussion closed as no consensus which doesn't hold prejudice to renomination. Given that the most recent coverage for this individual is from 7 years ago or so, I don't think much is going to change about their notability status. At best, waiting stirs the voter pool a bit. BrigadierG (
talk) 17:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
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: We had this about a year ago, here we are again, still not notable. The source chart is overly generous with a few sources, but I agree it's a !delete, this is PROMO.
Oaktree b (
talk) 23:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete looks like promotion per sources provided. No deep coverage by independent sources.
Tumbuka Arch (
talk) 11:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. The subject of this article has not been discussed in reliable secondary sources. Some of the sources (ThisDay) cited in the article are not independent of him and others (The Nation newspaper) are promotional to say the least. The awards he has won or been nominated for aren't notable.
Versace1608Wanna Talk? 17:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete I can only find press releases saying she's running this panel or other. BrigadierG (
talk) 22:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Speaker at xyz event, is about all there is for coverage about this person. One line stub that we can delete. Vaguely PROMO, not enough for notability.
Oaktree b (
talk) 00:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete subject lacks GNG as most of the sources available online are just press releases, not enough to establish notability.
Tumbuka Arch (
talk) 11:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep There are articles published in Forbes, Business Insider and African newspapers. That makes him eligible according to Wikipedia.
Jeersks (
talk) 10:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC) —
Jeersks (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Delete per
WP:RS. As stated by
Samoht27, crypto sources don't count, period. Many of the sources are just marketing or college-alumni puff pieces, and thus don't count. Forbes used to be good, but has become deprecated, and so that doesn't count either. Interviews in a newspaper don't count. In 2007, arguments that these constitute
significant coverage could be made, but not in 2024.
Bearian (
talk) 18:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails the
notability guideline for people. PROD was removed. Sources are either not independent or do not provide significant coverage. –
Teratix₵ 05:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, she is a COO and has significant news coverage, as well as in-depth coverage (see citations for
Fortune,
NPR, Tearsheet) which meets
WP:NBIO. Because she has a commonly used name, some of the news coverage for Lambert is hard to find. I added new citations since the AfD listing.
PigeonChickenFish (
talk) 06:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The citations you have added are a classic example of a
notability bomb – inserting a lot of insignificant references to create a superficial appearance of notability. For the benefit of other editors I will address each of them, but in future AfD discussions, instead of adding a dozen insignificant references and expecting other editors to pick through them, try to
focus on a few excellent sources.
Source 1 (Fortune) is an interview with Lambert that is too brief to constitute significant coverage and does not provide independent analysis of Lambert beyond her interview responses.
Source 2 (NPR) is an obvious PR piece – if we dig a little deeper we find
Lambert was elected to the NPR board, making this source non-independent and an obvious non-starter.
Sources 3–8 and 10 are about various things Lambert's employers did. None of them provide significant coverage of Lambert herself, but rather mention her only in passing. Again, these obviously constitute a notability bomb.
Sources 9 and 13 are profiles of Lambert for a conference she spoke at. These are obviously not independent sources.
Source 11 is a press release, obviously not independent.
The bulk of Source 12 (Tearsheet) is paywalled. I'm unfamiliar with Tearsheet, but looking at their About Us page brought me
to this page explaining their services, where they describe their purpose as [helping] financial services and fintech firms create memorable and meaningful content and get it in front of their target readers and exhort prospective customers to let us craft your unique story in a way that’s memorable and provides value to your audience. I conclude Tearsheet is not an independent reliable source but rather a vehicle for advertorials.
Lambert does share her name with others but it is easy to account for this by using more precise search terms or skipping over sources that obviously don't refer to Lambert the executive. –
Teratix₵ 07:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Source 1 is not an interview, and source 2 has no date (also I don’t think source 2 is PR, because I would expect PR would mention her current employer, or her status at the NPR board for example). Source 12 is not paywalled for me, it has biographical details (and not an interview) but I was also not familiar with the site, and perhaps it is questionable like you say.
PigeonChickenFish (
talk) 08:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
On Fortune: Honestly, it doesn't really matter what we call it – the point is it contains very little substantive coverage of Lambert, and what little there is has clearly drawn on interview responses from Lambert or just directly quotes her. Bottom line: it's not a source that provides the significant coverage needed to contribute to notability.
On NPR: a profile that appears on the website of a company for which she serves as a board member, that opens by gushing Lambert is a visionary, outcome driven executive and calls her a transformational leader with a proven track record – you don't think that's PR? You think that's an independent source we should accept as key evidence of Lambert's notability? That's your honest and thoughtfully considered view? –
Teratix₵ 10:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Here is the
Tearsheet article on Internet Archive. I also added it to the citation.
S0091 (
talk) 16:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 07:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment this case been in the news for years, not months. It has been extensively covered in WP:RS for that time. So the nomination description of it as “15 minutes of fame” is inaccurate. Makate may, or may not be notable in terms of
WP:BLP1E but the case almost certainly is.
Park3r (
talk) 03:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Park3r, the case may be notable. However, I don't think Nkosana Makate is, the article is composed of this particular case only. Opening statement says "…is a South African who proposed the "Buzz" idea to Vodacom", no description nor
WP:SIGCOV, and back to the nom, this is a clear BLP1E. Until relevant sources are brought to light, I think redirecting the article to Vodacom is the way to go. dxneo (
talk) 04:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Not sure I understand the deletion rationale here. The case is definitely notable and as much as Nkosana Makate may not be notable but he definitely deserves a mention in the case because after all he is the central figure to the case. Also, seeing that most articles on Wikipedia are about Europe and U.S and there is a serious
lack of African content (including content on languages) I think it would have been wise for you Dineo to be bold fix the issues on this article and go on to translate it to your mother tongue than tag it for speedy deletion.
Wikimedia ZA is there to support African Wikimedian like yourself to increase African content and languages on Wikipedia. Please reach out to me on bobby.shabangu@wikimedia.org.za to talk more on how we can support you.
Bobbyshabangutalk 18:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Bobbyshabangu, yes he may be the central figure but this is pure
WP:BLP1E (meaning he's known for one event only) which is the deletion rationale here. I wouldn't have nominated it for deletion if there was something I could do to improve it. Nkosana Makate is already mentioned on
Vodacom#Please Call Me. Note that your comment does not support your "keep" !vote in any way. dxneo (
talk) 19:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. As I read the "Keep" vote, the editor is rejecting the deletion nomination without arguing the specific points of it. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 00:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Basic business person resume/CV. Of the 4 references, 3 are brief appointment announcements and one is a brief database type description. North8000 (
talk) 15:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
How about picking/pointing out 2 that cover him in depth. North8000 (
talk) 12:18, 29 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) 18:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The sources cited in the article for establishing notability (also listed on the talk page) are
WP:SPONSORED and
WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The list includes articles from
India Today,
Outlook India, and
ANI. Additionally, sources like The New Indian Express and Financial Express are suspected to be sponsored due to lack of authorship. This article was previously soft-deleted via AfD.
Grabup (
talk) 10:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Being an organic farmer in the 21st Century doesn't get you notability. The sourcing reads as PR for the company, which isn't useful here. I don't see any sources we can use, nor do I find any that aren't PR'ish.
Oaktree b (
talk) 15:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 12:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:BASIC and
WP:PRIMARY: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." No secondary sources at all.
AusLondonder (
talk) 07:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep. Clearly meets
WP:GNG. @
AusLondonder: Have added reliable secondary sources to the article now. Request withdrawal of AfD nomination.
Cielquiparle (
talk) 21:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Of the sources you have added, I'm not sure a single one is actually significant coverage of him as an individual. One source is the Court Circular column in the Daily Telegraph which reports he awarded an Tuvalu Order of Merit to Prince William. Another article is about persecution of Ahmadis in Pakistan which name-checks him. I'm not seeing this as meeting
WP:BASIC: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
AusLondonder (
talk) 14:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 08:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I lean toward delete; but I'm wondering if his textbook "has made a significant impact in the area of higher education" per
WP:NACADEMIC #4 (although the discussion under that bullet point suggest that meeting notability through that path requires "several books that are widely used as textbooks"). This is an area of academic law not within my experience, so I will refrain from an actual
!vote.
TJRC (
talk) 00:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. We are thankful to the
kamikaze account who created and posted up this text, just as we're thankful to Mr Barth himself for supplying his photographic portrait. If only the text could be worthy of inclusion! It is not, due to our subject's notable lack of
independent notability. We check the article and
we search for
sources but, alas, nothing of substance do we manage to scare up. All we catch are routine listings in trade media, such as
this;
online brochures, such as
this; a bunch of
expired links, e.g.
here,
here,
here; and a few
advertorials. And
WP:NACADEMIC is spectacularly failed. -
The Gnome (
talk) 14:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 23:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The article has many issues for a BLP and feels like a WP:SPIP. The article already has a resume-like alert and the puffery alert (which is dated from 2021).
I would also argue that on the notability of this subject. This person's notability is not inherented to them by association with their company. The company is notable and has high quality representation in Wikipedia.
There are also a number of details that are not cited in this article and our major issue for BLP. Many of the citations also do not match facts in the source (example: cite in personal life). One source is just "Department of Construction Management & Civil Engineering" without any sort of information to detail whether this source is a publication, a website, etc.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Drive-by comment (no considered view on notability one way or the other): redirection to
Zipline (drone delivery company) is surely a viable alternative to deletion. –
Teratix₵ 13:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Only 2 articles link to this. Does not appear to meet
WP:BIO. Sources confirm he's been a CEO but lacking
WP:SIGCOV.
LibStar (
talk) 05:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Desertarun (
talk) 09:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - a simple Proquest search for ""Bernard Mariette" yields a lot of international results over the last two decades. Was there a
WP:BEFORE?
Nfitz (
talk) 16:30, 27 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) 10:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep -- Plenty of significant coverage found in Newsbank also. Many of the hits are low quality PR, but there are more than enough that aren't. E.g. "Quiksilver Retrenches Its Top Leadership February 12, 2008 LA Times," "Downhill Run March 19. 2010 The Deal," and "Trouble in the tube April 3, 2010 The Age". The LA Times piece is already used in the article, but the others aren't. Therefore meets GNG.
Central and Adams (
talk) 15:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply