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:
- 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.
![Archive](https://web.archive.org/web/20221126223605im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2a/Replacement_filing_cabinet.svg/32px-Replacement_filing_cabinet.svg.png)
watch |
This list is included in more general lists of business-related deletions and people for deletion.
See also: Businesses for deletion.
Businesspeople
Daniel J. Quirk
- Daniel J. Quirk ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)
Insignificant coverage for WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Of the sources in the article, one is mostly a primary source interview, the BBB page has no useful information, and the last focuses primarily on Fore River Shipyard with only a trivial mention of Quirk. All other sources focus primarily on Quirk's businesses (rather than himself) and provide little biographical information or indication of significance beyond owning a few small car dealerships and part of a shipyard (also largely used for his businesses). PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 03:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 03:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Zakaria Benkabouche
- Zakaria Benkabouche ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)
I can't find anything in reputable sources about Benkabouche. Nothing in Google Books, ProQuest or Google that is of any use. All I can find is his own website and social media accounts. Looks to fail WP:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, and France. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Almost zero web presence for this person, even limiting it to .fr websites. One social media and what appears to be a phone book listing. Oaktree b (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Erin Smith (entrepreneur)
- Erin Smith (entrepreneur) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)
Non-notable BLP. We have broad consensus that thiel fellows are not inherently notable based on WP:INHERIT and that Forbes "30 under 30" lists do not confer notability. Little is left. There are unresolved questions about notability on the talkpage, and WP:BIO notability criteria are not clearly met. WP:BEFORE yields no (or debatably very little) independent coverage of her at all. FalconK (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - I agree it's an edge case and the article can def be improved, but for me these three give significant coverage in reliable sources: Wired, Startland, Business Journal Mujinga (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Dan Matteucci
- Dan Matteucci ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)
Not yet notable by WP:NACTOR or WP:BIO. Only minor or uncredited roles so far, and I can find no significant coverage from reliable sources in a WP:BEFORE search. Claim of "best actor" award won is vague and unsourced. Storchy (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Storchy (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Bit parts, ACTOR not met. Well from his website "Dan Matteucci is currently the most notable actor, model, and an influencer in the American Entertainment industry " my emphasis. He's more notable than anyone else apparently. Or this nugget on influencive.com/commit-to-be-fit-a-guide-by-dan-matteucci/, which has been blacklisted and won't let me post the website link. This is far from GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. I was planning to AfD this after tagging notability but Storchy beat me to it. The roles are minor and obviously fail WP:NACTOR, whereas GNG/BASIC is also failed. The references cited are databases, non-RS, promotional, routine non-SIGCOV press release-like piece, and a piece Dan himself wrote. My WP:BEFORE did not find sources contributing to GNG/BASIC, only trivial mentions. VickKiang (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. He has not had a single significant named role. I see no evidence of notability after a search.Spiralwidget (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Internet. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Patrick Shyu
- Patrick Shyu ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)
This article doxxes the YouTuber "TechLead," and Wikipedia should respect the YouTuber's privacy and pseudo-anonymous name.
Further, the YouTube channel is a satire channel built around a fictional persona, and so should not be confused with the real name of the actor. For instance, the paragraph about the person being "sexist" is factually incorrect - this was a satire tweet (later deleted and apologized) as an over-exaagerated commentary on "wokeism" culture, which unfortunately some people mistook for being real. For Wikipedia to publish this without the context might be considered not only defamatory, but it's unfair and lacks context. TechLead has in fact published multiple videos in support of women and mothers in tech, and his commentary on tech being "hostile" towards mothers is not an attack on women, but an attack on the industry for parent rights rather. TechLead has published 300+ videos, a mix of which some are useful & inspirational, while some are intentionally controversial or provocative to gain attention for the YouTube algorithm. To create a Wikipedia page about 1 or 2 satirical videos of a fictional character, and to then portray them as fact in a negative manner using the real name of the person is inaccurate and out-of-context.
The character might also be considered "not famous enough," as there are far far bigger YouTubers.
I would propose to simply delete this page. If disagreeable, an alternative would be to fairly portray the subject matter by summarizing the 300+ videos and not just cherrypick a few subjects, and to publish this under the name "TechLead, YouTuber" rather than the doxxed name. Techleadhd (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep It's not really doxxing when they have media pieces about him. The sources used are fine for GNG. His name and handle are used here [1], not useful for notability here, but it takes about 5 seconds in Google to find out about him. Oaktree b (talk) 04:53, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- The CNBC piece mentions his real name and links to the youtube page of his persona. This isn't hidden info, we're able to mention it here. Oaktree b (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- The CNBC piece illegitimately doxxed the YouTuber without consent, and Wikipedia should continue to respect the privacy of individuals who choose not to be doxxed. Techleadhd (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- The CNBC piece mentions his real name and links to the youtube page of his persona. This isn't hidden info, we're able to mention it here. Oaktree b (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Are you the subject of the article? You have to respect WP:COI if you are. Oaktree b (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Reliable sources have already named the article subject by his real name, so there is no "doxxing". To the contrary, the subject's public self-promotion makes him a public figure. The channel doesn't identify itself as a satire channel in its bio, and none of the reliable sources cited by the article describe it as satire. The article can't include a summary of all the channel's videos; that's original research, which is not allowed. This nomination, from an account with the same name as the article subject's Twitter handle, strikes me as WP:IDONTLIKEIT, specifically the "This makes me look stupid!" argument in the list on that section. White 720 (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- He's doxxed himself by giving interviews if that makes sense. Oaktree b (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- His real name, photo, and YouTube persona all appear on the home page of Tech Interview Pro, a commercial venture that appears genuine (i.e., not satirical) White 720 (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- The same bio appears on DeFi Pro, which
he just launched this monthhe launched earlier this year. White 720 (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2022 (UTC)- While the contents of the online course DeFi Pro can be attributed to the individual, the contents of the YouTube and Twitter handles are published as satire under the pseudoname and should not be attributed. A distinction should be made here because YouTube content is typically created for the Algorithm to gain attention, and so it is typical for YouTubers to disassociate their real names from their channel names. Techleadhd (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Patrick Shyu linked his YouTube channel directly from his bio on his online courses. Irrespective of what YouTubers typically do, this particular YouTuber has chosen to link his channel with his businesses. White 720 (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Well he doesn't disclose anywhere on youtube that it's satire. I doubt that statement. And his name is linked directly from the About on his YTube page going to Tech Interview Pro, about your instructor. It's not hidden. We can't ignore it here. Oaktree b (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- While the contents of the online course DeFi Pro can be attributed to the individual, the contents of the YouTube and Twitter handles are published as satire under the pseudoname and should not be attributed. A distinction should be made here because YouTube content is typically created for the Algorithm to gain attention, and so it is typical for YouTubers to disassociate their real names from their channel names. Techleadhd (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- The same bio appears on DeFi Pro, which
- His real name, photo, and YouTube persona all appear on the home page of Tech Interview Pro, a commercial venture that appears genuine (i.e., not satirical) White 720 (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- He's doxxed himself by giving interviews if that makes sense. Oaktree b (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Since the AfD opened, I added some additional information to this article, including comments about projects he has launched. White 720 (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Wikipedia is not LinkedIn or Facebook. The article cherrypicks a few negative opinions about a YouTube persona and publishes them under the doxxed name in a non-representative manner as if this were some sort of biography. Wikipedia should not be publishing about non-notable individuals.
- Techleadhd (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Nom is by a WP:SPA who also opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Patrick_Shyu. Geoff | Who, me? 19:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Internet. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Elie Khouri
- Elie Khouri ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)
Non-notable marketing person. Being a CEO of a regional branch of Omnicom Group is not something inherently notable. The coverage he received is promotional and possibly paid for. We know editing here is paid for and remains undisclosed. Receiving coverage like interview, quotes of him, or awards in local Forbes non-notable lists is not enough to pass WP:SIGCOV. Zelimkhan Khasanov (talk) 12:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 24. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 12:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Found "articles" in Entrepreneur Middle East (basically an interview) and a Forbes article he wrote, rest are of lesser quality. nothing much found. Oaktree b (talk) 12:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Lebanon. Shellwood (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Nicholas J. Ayala
- Nicholas J. Ayala ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)
WP:RUNOFTHEMILL businessperson. Coverage is largely interviews, press releases and churnalism articles. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Mccapra (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete sourced to PR/puff pieces.-KH-1 (talk) 11:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Rita Burak
- Rita Burak ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)
WP:BLP of a government bureaucrat, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing our inclusion criteria for non-elected government officials. The notability claim here is that she's "current chair of the board" of a public corporation, except that's outdated as she left that role almost 15 years ago (and even weirder, she left that role before this article was even created, meaning it was already wrong about her "current" status from day one) -- but the referencing isn't getting her over WP:GNG for it, as it consists of one entry in a "who's who" (which has long been deprecated as not enough to carry notability all by itself) and a bunch of primary source "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of her own former employers.
And even on a ProQuest search for older coverage that wouldn't Google considering how long ago she left the Hydro One role, I'm finding a lot of glancing namechecks of her existence as a giver of soundbite in coverage of other things, but no real GNG-building coverage about her as a subject.
There just isn't anything here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have much, much better referencing than I've been able to find. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - I have found many sources, in books and the newspapers, on her work as cabinet secretary under Mike Harris, a politician from Ontario. These are now in the article, and I invite Bearcat to consider if this now well-sourced enough to withdraw the AfD nomination. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - thanks to improvements by DaffodilOcean Mujinga (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Don Markland
- Don Markland ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)
Lacks significant coverage in independent RS, likely to fail WP:NBIO. KH-1 (talk) 03:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 03:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete The Forbes article is by a "brand contributor" and is not under Forbes editorial control (promo). The Startup Reporter is a site where startups can set up their own web sites. I don't find anything else that could be considered a reliable source. This appears to be WP:PROMO. Lamona (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Per WP:MILL and not meeting the minimum of being notable and lacking significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. --Bormenthalchik82 (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
David J. Winters
- David J. Winters ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)
Non-notable investor, insufficient sigcov provided to establish notability. Jdcooper (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Jdcooper (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- The Business Week and the International Herald Tribune source seems to be significant and not a passing mention. I think this is a borderline case. RoostTC(Please ping me) 01:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Roostery123 both of those links are dead. Where did you find the articles please? Can you link me? MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
@MaxnaCarta Here you go RoostTC(please ping me when replying) 05:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Roost The first one is definitely about him. The IHT one is a discussion that he took place in, so it's not a secondary source. Is the Barron's really only two lines, or am I not able to see the rest? Lamona (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Olajide Tope
- Olajide Tope ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)
There are multiple sources that does not pass the general notability guidelines. All the sources are either interviews or puff pieces about what he said, nothing in-depth or independent. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Nigeria, and United Arab Emirates. Reading Beans (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Strong delete. I've checked all 9 sources (as of November 24 at 6:46 pm, PDT) - all of them are either press-releases, sponsored content or written in interview format with no editorial opinion of the journalists. Most of them don't have journalists names, which is another alarming sign of lacking notability. Unless more notable sources are found, this article has no place on Wikipedia.Bormenthalchik82 (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Thierry Manni
- Thierry Manni ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)
Fails WP:GNG. Jay D. Easy (t) 14:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jay D. Easy (t) 14:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Sources in the article only provide trivial coverage. Couldn't find any other sources that would make the article pass WP:GNG. ProofRobust 17:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Jennifer Jenkins DeLonge
- Jennifer Jenkins DeLonge ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)
Doesn't seem independently notable - suggesting a redirect to Tom DeLonge LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and California. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete coverage seems to be that she married someone famous and revolves around that point. Oaktree b (talk) 14:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Gina Coladangelo
- Gina Coladangelo ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)
Subject is notable only for her relationship with the politician Matt Hancock which can be dealt with in his article. She has no independent notability. If you exclude her family and her relationship with Hancock, what is left is very minor indeed. This page exists primarily as a coatrack for a politically-motivated attack on Matt Hancock, the former British health minister, who is currently appearing in a reality TV program and has been criticised for his performance during the recent pandemic. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 09:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect: Agree with the nominator, subject is not independently notable. Information is already covered in Matt Hancock's article. --92.15.144.174 (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
- Disagree; continuing coverage and allusions, e.g. Private Eye.
- — FlashSheridan (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep For reasons given by FlashSheridan above. On a side note, Philafrenzy objects to Companies House being cited as the source for her date of birth because it is "a primary source." Surely her birth certificate is the primary source. Yes or no? 91.216.181.11 (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- Has anything changed since the last AFD? It was a clear Keep. Liz Read! Talk! 08:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete and create a redirect to a section of Matt Hancock. Not independently notable, and the article borders on an attack on Coladangelo, as much as or more than on Hancock as the nominator suggests. At the previous AfD, much was made of insinuations in the press that Hancock's appointing her as an NHS advisor was sleazy in view of her background as a lobbyist; I see this point is in the article, including discussion of her pay, so if this was indeed big in the press prior to the events that led to Hancock's resignation, perhaps that should also be mentioned in his article and the redirect lead to the COVID-19 pandemic section. But it does not appear to have attracted sufficient coverage among other similar topics alleging sleaze until the June 2021 exposé that led to his resignation, so that section of his article is probably a better target. Nor does that blip of coverage of Hancock's hiring her make an adequate second point of notability, and there do not appear to be any other reasons for notability: her career has not otherwise attracted extended coverage, her father's purported wealth, her uncle, and her marriage are all clearly not points of notability, so what we have is a negative-leaning near-BLP1E. Her name is a legitimate search target but the encyclopaedic information about her can be adequately conveyed at the Hancock article. (In view of FlashSheridan's !vote, I searched for evidence of an exposé in Private Eye covering more than the lockdown clinch; merely being mentioned there, no matter how frequently, doesn't indicate notability. Repeated name-dropping is after all what they do. If there is Private Eye coverage with new information that contributes to her notability, please indicate what it uncovers so that a citeable source can be found.) Yngvadottir (talk) 09:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
John Babikian
- John Babikian ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)
Insufficient sourcing to establish notability Cesarminus (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC) — Cesarminus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. Not seeing a strong argument for deletion under WP:GNG based on the verifiable material already in the article. Sources appear to meet WP:BASIC with WP:SUSTAINED in-depth significant coverage over a period of several years in RS; thus the nominator's rationale for deletion per WP:SIGCOV is just plain wrong. He appears to be known for illegally manipulating stocks, and participating in fraud. There is quite a lot of coverage of that criminal activity. On a side note, the divorce in 2013 doesn't appear in the sources currently in the article, so I think that sentence should be removed. That said, I could see an argument made in favor of deletion because the subject may fail WP:BLP1E or WP:CRIME. I have no strong opinion over whether this should be kept or deleted, given that there could be a case made under policy for both.4meter4 (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. I see a strong argument for deletion under WP:CRIME as based on the US government issued reference, the accused was not found guilty. There is also a valid argument made that subject fails WP:BLP1E 88.209.124.93 (talk) 11:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)— 88.209.124.93 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment
(This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.) | ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2014-52#.UyMXffldWSq | ![]() |
![]() |
~ Covers subject's nefarious deeds but doesn't give any broader overview of the subject. | ~ Partial |
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-09/john-thomas-s-ceo-belesis-barred-by-regulators-for-frontrunning | Doesn't mention subject | ![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sec-babikian-canada-idUSKBN0F923A20140704 | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-07-04/awesomepennystocks-promoter-has-tentative-settlement-with-sec?leadSource=uverify%20wall | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
www.journaldemontreal.com/2014/03/14/le-loup-de-montreal-a-fait-19-million--en-90-minutes | ~ Local news outlet | ![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
https://blockshopper.com/ca/los-angeles-county/los-angeles/property/5527015023/642-north-laurel-avenue | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
https://www.wsj.com/articles/whistleblowers-find-sec-rewards-slow-and-scarce-1432594234 | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2014/03/sec_seeks_to_freeze_and_attach.html | ~ Local news outlet | ![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
www.investmentexecutive.com/-/sec-charges-canadian-man-with-fraud | ![]() |
? No consensus on this outlet's reliability | ![]() |
✘ No |
Table created using {{source assess table}} |
There's coverage of the pumpa and dump in business and local news but other than a Vice article it doens't look like the mainstream news outlets were particularly interested in this event. Plus, none of the sources listed above discuss the subject outside of the events. I suppose one could add them to the examples section of Pump and dump but they're not as novel as Stratton Oakmont or Cryptocurrency in my opinion. Just one of many low-level pump and dump schemes that go down on the daily.𝔓420°𝔓Holla 18:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC) — GDX420 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment In my search, I found this sources The ‘Wolf of Montreal’ Fugitive Was Building a $9-Million Mansion Based on Iron Man’s House that talks about him in detail and referred to him as ‘Wolf of Montreal’. According to the above analysis, even if the source meets all the criteria, it is still not enough to establish notability. Because multiple sources with above conditions are needed. If no new coverage in RS is found Delete, if founded please ping me. Alimovvarsu (talk)21:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC) — Alimovvarsu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (sock strike Liz Read! Talk! 20:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC))- Note: User blocked for socking. MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- This article's been under constant, well-funded attack from accounts with very thin histories for years. I encourage the closer to examine the contributors here in that light, and make their own assessment of whether the claims that sources like this and this aren't significant coverage pass the sniff test. —Cryptic 23:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- Weak delete Vice News has a thing about him [4] and the Journal de Montreal [5]. Some coverage, but I'm not showing enough to keep. Oaktree b (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Canadian Globe and Mail and WSJ speak about him (but then again there are many questionable penny stocks on Canadian exchanges Flibbertigibbets (talk) 02:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete These kinds of people are a dime a dozen. Definitely associated with only a single event, and there is no other evidence of notability other than the one-off media frenzy, per WP:BLP1E. If it weren't for the really brief media frenzy, he would have been quickly deleted via CSD for not being notable at all. Ferrousmeteor8 (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC) — Ferrousmeteor8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion early because it is dominated by editors with low edit counts. I have a feeling that there are some folks who want this article deleted because it is negative. I'd like some AFD regulars dive in and see if there are really insufficient sources to create a BLP article on this individual. If so, I'm fine with deleting it, I just want it to get a decent review from experienced editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - Though, I make my vote cautiously. I strongly suspect the motive behind the nomination is the removal of negative content rather than a genuine desire to apply Wikipedia notability guidelines. Same with the comments from very new accounts including a sock. Now, let us say the subject of this article had not been caught up in legal troubles and he was merely a trader. The coverage on its face would probably not lend toward sufficient notability for an article. In this instance, given the issues faced, perhaps the name of the article is incorrect. Perhaps this should be coverage of the case and renamed "SEC v. Babikian" and the content orientated toward the case. There is a tenable argument the subject may not meet GNG. I am not seeing how the notability standard for crimes is met as there was no particularly unique motivation or execution per WP:CRIME and WP:PERPETRATOR, though I do note the multi-million dollar amount involved. The event or topic likely meets GNG - even if a biography of the individual would not. My submission is made with careful consideration to a number of factors: the motivation behind the nomination, the need to apply notability guidelines, and the need to protect the project from attempts to remove fair and truthful information about an individual that has been written in good faith, properly sourced, and is in the public interest. On balance, I consider the reasons to keep the article slightly outweigh any grounds for deletion, though happy to discuss my view with others. There is additional coverage in this book also. MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep As MaxnaCarta pointed out, it is likely that there is an ulterior motive behind the moves for deletion. Looking at the coverage, it is clear that the subject himself did become notable, namely for his use of the profits, and it was not just the crime or singular event which received enough coverage to become notable. For example, see this article in the National Post, this piece in Vice, or this article in the Toronto Sun. None of these sources are referenced in the article and there are many more of this kind. Chagropango (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)