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

Aikande Kwayu

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

Contested draftification. Promotional bio that appears to be written by an editor with a COI. I recommend returning this to draftspace and salting the page since the editor has re-created the page several times now. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Businesspeople, Women, Religion, and Tanzania. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS cites far too soon for WP:Prof so Salt for a few years until notability is established. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No secondary sources (included or found) suggest WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC are met. Promotional piece by a COI editor. I am minded to agree with SALTing too, given that the creator repeatedly moved the article to mainspace against clear opposition, and appears to have gamed the system to enable them to do that in the first place. Dorsetonian (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional: a photo caption including " She offers her professional work and services in English and Swahili." shows how unencyclopedic this article is. PamD 09:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It smells like promotion. I haven't found a reliable source but maybe others will manage to find one. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have no evidence of GNG-based notability as argued above, citations are too low for WP:PROF#C1, the other PROF criteria look out of reach, and I didn't find any published reviews of her books that might contribute to a pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin O'Reilly

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

Not Significant enough. Evolvedtyrant (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Ireland, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Evolvedtyrant… Could you elaborate your concerns to enable a good debate? Prima facie the CEO of a large media group and chair of the world newspaper body, with coverage, does not seem an obvious concern re notability. SeoR (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well-sourced and seems to meet WP:GNG - Alison ^talk 03:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - there’s significant coverage, but the article is so poorly written and organized that it’s close to WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well sourced. @Evolvedtyrant:, I understand this is your first time nominating an article for deletion but your explanation needs to be far more in-depth than "Not Significant enough". What's not significant? The person? The coverage? Otherwise please do not nominate articles on a whim if you are unfamiliar with notability guidelines. Thanks. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems notable still, sourcing ok, 1-2 points I will check. Cleaned up some repetition / cruft. Seconding above - putting articles for AfD with under 100 edits, and perhaps not a full study of policy, might be premature. SeoR (talk) 12:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Boakye-Danquah

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

Non-notable businessman. Almost all sources are about his family or projects - no significant coverage. No reliable sources were found online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Royalty and nobility, and Ghana. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While there may not be many, an extensive article has been published (as referenced) regarding his appointment as an ambassador for an internationally recognized organization. The legitimacy of his nobility, if relevant, is beyond question. How many publications would be considered "enough" in this context? This article was never about a celebrity to begin with. Moreover, there are numerous nobles with Wikipedia articles solely due to their lineage, despite making little to no impact themselves.

How often do publications feature African personalities in depth, beyond narratives centered on poverty? Efforts like this deserve recognition. Everyone begins their journey somewhere, at their own level. This article should not be dismissed as irrelevant—it represents a significant achievement, not just for an individual, but for an entire continent. AkakomPrincess1 (talk) 13:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Vanjagenije (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the article published about him by the Swiss Chamber of Commerce, there are numerous references from reliable Ghanaian newspapers that establish his role as a business developer for facilitatiing the Ghana Innovative Housing Project. Furthermore, a reference from the "house of innovations" recognizes him as a business developer in Europe. These points, in my view, provide ample relevance beyond his family ties. 2A01:6BC0:2:F1:1:0:3:543C (talk) 14:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the focus should be on the „appointment“ to this new role and not what he was before. I see no issues here. 2A01:599:A09:BBE0:8882:787:3002:120F (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable business person, ambassador to the chamber of commerce is more of a business position than anything political. Coverage is PR items or in non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a made up title for an up and coming, but ultimately, run of the mill business person without any allegations of notability; "ambassador" is used here in the sense of a lobbyist or college tour guide, not a diplomat. In 2024, everyone knows that we are not LinkedIn. Bearian (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saidullo Abdullaev

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

Non-notable BLP. StartGrammarTime (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Uzbekistan. StartGrammarTime (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There’s no allegation of notability. He’s been on a couple of boards. That’s WP:MILL. Bearian (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brock Walker

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

The press releases and similar do not pass GNG, and the Bru Times News appears to be paid / vanity press. I do not see citations for WP:NPROF. Little other sign of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Academics and educators. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Sinclair

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

Seems quite promo and does not appear to have WP:SUSTAINED notability backed up with WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How should I change it to make it less promo, please? Tomahawk Tasmania (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few adjustments to the tone and added a source Tomahawk Tasmania (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with zero sources it would have to be deleted speedily; with (at most) one reliable source, it’s original research. Bearian (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Béla Dunszt

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

Non-notable businessman, fails WP:NBIO. CoconutOctopus talk 22:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Hungary. CoconutOctopus talk 22:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is one notable in Hungary. Jomajor8 (talk) 10:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable business man in Hungary, (Redacted) knows that too as he is from there, he is just putting this delete notice to all my edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jomajor8 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable person with a non-notable company. Canterbury Tail talk 17:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Keeperman

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

No longer a notable personage. The sources included mostly concern the article's previous subject, the small company Passage Publishing. This may well change in the future, but, over all, there are very few RS that could be used to rectify this issue. Roggenwolf (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It appears that the nom is based on WP:DEL-REASON #8, but the nom fails to show how the article does not meet the standard. Notability is not a past/present thing, so there's no such thing as "no longer a notable personage". If he "was" notable, then he "is" notable. Second, the nom's purpose in proposing deletion seems to be that "most" of the sources are about Passage Publishing. Interestingly, the article was just moved for the exact opposite reason - that sources focus on Keeperan rather than specifically on the Passage. A brief review of existing sources and potential as of yet unused sources indicates there's enough to sustain an article. The article is start-class, although it needs content refocus, but that's enough to warrant alternatives to deletion. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Politics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. I often weigh in on academic deletion discussions but the embarrassing connection to my employer gives me too much of a COI. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough news coverage to get over the notability bar. I concur with the above !vote that notability is not temporary. XOR'easter (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I requested it be moved, as noted above, for the opposite reason. There are no notability proving sources for Passage Publishing outside of ones that concern Keeperman. If you think he doesn't meet it, I disagree, but the company extra doesn't meet it given how strict NCORP is. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original author of the article here. I am new to wikipedia but my immediate impression is that this change didn't make sense, and this rationale doesn't make sense.

The intention of starting the page for Passage Publishing is that they are a publisher, and the works and authors they publish are notable. I believe a page for Passage Publishing should be evaluated under N:PUBLISHING not NCORP

"A publisher is notable if they have published a notable individual publication or a series of publications that are collectively notable."

Whether or not a page for the founder is sufficiently notable seems like an entirely separate issue. Instead of changing an article to an obviously different subject, I would propose that a page for Passage Publishing should exist, and whether or not there should be a page on Jonathan Keeperman should be discussed entirely separately.

Why not revert the change, create a page for Jonathan Keeperman, and have this debate there? Or, do I need to recreate the article for Passage Publishing? Bluetik (talk) 02:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel B. Matthews

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

This article has been toned down over the years but still seems decidedly promotional. "Here, Dan attained his M.B.A. in a mere 8 months, specializing in Marketing and Business Management. He managed to do this. while working two jobs at the same time" Everything is sourced to an article from his university's alumni association, and I'm skeptical that this is independent. That article certainly reads like a subject-provided biography.

The claims of notability are that he was a Senior Vice President at Northwest Airlines and won "North American Deal of the Year Award in 2006" and "AirFinance Lifetime Achievement Award in 2003". "North American Deal of the Year Award" gets under 30 total Google results, with conflicting information about who gives it, and none of the sources seem particularly reliable. When I google "AirFinance Lifetime Achievement Award" the only results are this guy's Wikipedia article and college alumni articles, and a random person's Linkedin bio. These do not seem like notable awards. Here2rewrite (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree this is definitely promotional. Sources 1, 2, and 3 are all the same "Daniel Matthews 76' - Alumni Achievement Award 07" page from his university alumni publication. Almost word-for-word. The Source #4 is a university news release that announces at the very bottom that Matthews will receive the "Lewis University Distinguished Alumni Award" — Maile (talk) 05:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, Aviation, and Illinois. Skynxnex (talk) 05:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO, could likely be speedied... I don't see notability, with zero coverage found. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shalini Passi

AfDs for this article:

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

Not meet WP:BIO. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Artists. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is extensive coverage focusing on her role in the art world, her socialite status and her role as a main cast member on a Netflix series, which meets WP:ARTIST & WP:BIO. Vogue India and Economic Times - Profile are strong sources within the article both of which provide in-depth profiles of her career and influence. Additionally, LuxeBook, Architectural Digest and Lifestyle Asia solidifies notability. With these sources and a lot others available, the article is well-supported to pass GNG.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 14:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 10:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GNG achieved per adequate sourcing and Mims Mentor's analysis above. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Drysdale

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

Mildly WP:PROMO bio of a non-notable businessman. Despite being a WP:REFBOMB, the sources do not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. They are limited to:

Routine news in WP:TRADES publications ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6])
Press releases ([7])
WP:PRIMARYSOURCE Q&A interviews/speaker bios ([8], [9], [10], [11])
A WP:FORBES "contributor" post (i.e., not reliable) and a "citizen contributor" (i.e. unedited blogger) post on a local news site.
And finally, a promotional profile on a website whose stated purpose is promoting the success of executives and their diverse team of business partners and thus not independent.

I didn't find anything else qualifying in the WP:BEFORE search. I also checked on the statement that he won an EY Entrepreneur of the Year Award, which might meet WP:ANYBIO#1, but it turns out he won a New Jersey region EY award (source) Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Medicine, and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject may meet notability standards under WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Coverage across multiple sources, including recognition through an EY Entrepreneur of the Year (regional) award, demonstrates relevance and significance in their field. While some sources are primary or publications, they complement others that provide independent context. The article can be improved for neutrality and sourcing rather than deleted. 24eeWikiUser (talk) 05:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: 24eeWikiUser (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

@24eeWikiUser, please say which sources meet the test of WP:GNG or WP:NBIO, not just asserting that they do. And the criterion of WP:ANYBIO that allows a subject to be considered automatically notable for winning an award applies to "major" awards like Nobel Prizes, Oscars, MacArthur Genius Grants, etc -- not to being one of 11 people from New Jersey to win a business award. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may not yet be convinced that the subject, Doug Drysdale, is notable; however, he has 30 years of experience in his field, including 12 years as CEO of three pharmaceutical companies with global reach Alvogen, Pernix Therapeutics, and Cybin Inc. Among them are a NASDAQ-listed company and another he served as Founding CEO. He has also chaired the boards of other NASDAQ-listed companies and has made widely recognized contributions. Since the sources back up his background and align with the listed awards and recognitions, I reiterate that the article can be improved for neutrality and sourcing rather than deleted.

1. Sustained Attention: Routine mentions, when taken collectively, contribute to notability by indicating sustained attention to the subject's career.
2. Regional EY Award: Regional awards are part of the broader EY Entrepreneur of the Year program, which adds credibility and weight to his achievements.
3. Field Contributions: Detailed coverage in interviews and other publications, provide valuable insight into his influence and significance.
4. Sources Are Not Disqualifying: What you referred to as promotional sites and Forbes articles are not entirely disqualifying when they complement other sources.

24eeWikiUser (talk) 06:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you have still not answered my question: which sources do you think qualify the subject as notable? Your comments do a lot of hand-waving about routine mentions, when taken collectively and detailed coverage in interviews and complement other sources but you have offered no competing analysis of sources, nor even suggested a mere WP:THREE, that meet the standard here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. Please check these sources, [12], [13], [14], and he was also listed among 10 Psychedelics CEOs To Pay Attention To In 2022. 24eeWikiUser (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of these sources are already discussed in my nomination statement, but here's some more detailed analysis of each of the links you offered:

A local news profile by a "citizen contributor." "Citizen contributor" = community member/blogger, not an actual journalist and thus not someone writing to the standards expected of reliable sources.

A Forbes profile by a "senior contributor." Per WP:FORBESCON, Most content on Forbes.com is written by contributors or "Senior Contributors" with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable.

A press release posted by Drysdale's company on BusinessWire. Per WP:PRSOURCE, A press release is clearly not an independent source as it is usually written either by the business or organization it is written about, or by a business or person hired by or affiliated with the organization.

A brief mention in a list of CEOs. This is a WP:TRIVIALMENTION, not WP:SIGCOV. It's also directly copied from his official corporate bio and thus not WP:INDEPENDENT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 06:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fiorenzo Manganiello

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't think much has changed since the last AfD. Most of the sources are insignificant/primary: quotes, mentions, interviews. Does not pass WP:BASIC or WP:NACADEMIC. Frost 11:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Cryptocurrency, Finance, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Frost, Sir/Madam, I have used those references that are not merely quotes or mere mentions. These are news articles that gets published or covered by third party sources. These are not promotional content se. Still, you are more experienced editor than me and can guide me as I have done my research and can share references that fulfill the criteria of WP:BASIC. Your guidance will be highly appreciated. ~~~~ Fanalrino (talk) 12:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have cross checked again. All of the mentioned sources are secondary sources and not simply mentions or interviews and I think so passes the WP:BASIC. So, the subject passes the Notability criteria and should be there on wikipedia. Fanalrino (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are more experienced than me and can help in editing all relevant reasons for deletion, please do highlight so it can be fixed instead of nominating it for deletion. Your input on this matter will be highly appreciated. Fanalrino (talk) 13:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. No sign whatsoever of WP:NPROF. For GNG, I see press releases, a few passing mentions in reliable sources, and unreliable sources. I do not think it is enough. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It does fulfill the criteria for WP:GNG as majority of citations are from secondary reliable sources and do not have passing mentions only. There are complete articles on the subject and about his business. I do agree with the fact that it does not fall under WP:NPROF but it does fulfill the criteria for WP:GNG. It specifically cover the clause titled as ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Also, it adhers to clause "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." So, I think so it should not be deleted. Fanalrino (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:. For complying with WP:GNG, I have added news article sources that are considered secondary sources and these are not mere trivial mentions but specifically written articles about him and his company. They are not interviews and sources like Business Insider or Saudi Gazette, or even Cryptonomist are secondary sources and subject's coverage on these sources clearly shows that he does fulfill the criteria of Notability according to wikipedia guidelines. Also, any additional information that is not backed easily with strong secondary references has been revmoed earlier. So, I would request that Deletion notice should be deleted. Thanks Fanalrino (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I would also like to strengthen my case with following arguments:

General Notability Guidelines WP:GNG

Manganiello's activities, such as co-founding LIAN Group and PolarDC, have been covered in reliable, independent sources like Financial Times, Business Insider, and Digital Infra Network. Coverage demonstrates significant attention beyond mere mentions, highlighting his influence in venture capital and blockchain. Academic Notability WP:NACADEMIC

Manganiello's role as a professor at Geneva Business School and ambassador to the Global Blockchain Business Council suggests academic impact in blockchain education, an emerging field of global importance. Entrepreneurial Contributions WP:NPROF

Founding sustainable blockchain firms (e.g., Cowa) addresses pressing industry challenges, earning him accolades like Blockchain Expert Switzerland. His contributions align with public interest criteria. Reliable Sources and Secondary Coverage

While there is one keen source that is primary (e.g., Geneva Business School), there are substantial secondary sources discuss his ventures, philanthropy, and investments (e.g., Techerati, Cryptonomist), meeting WP:RS It is not only press releases that are about him. There are multiple secondary source articles that are discussing his achievements and of his company. Public Interest and Context

Blockchain and sustainable crypto are critical global discussions, and I think so figures like Manganiello, backed by notable funding and initiatives, enrich this discourse.Fanalrino (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I have improved the article further after its nomination for deletion. The keen issue was of references and I have fixed that by citing majority news articles about the subject that are secondary and not trivial mentions. Also, I have removed extra information that was backed by primary sources. So, I hope it does fulfill the criteria now and it should not be deleted. If there is a further room for improvement, you guys are more expereinced than me and your guidance will mean alot. Thanks Fanalrino (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Even if we consider it according to WP:THREE, [15], [16], [17]], [18]], [19] all qualifies as secondary sources and are following the guideline provided in WP:GNG stated as ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

One last point, I would like to add that I did check the previous nomination and in fact those sources were not sufficient according to wikipedia guidelines. But now, majority of the references are new and secondary and are fulfilling the criteria set according to WP:GNG. The article has been improved alot since its nomination and new references and content of the article is improved. Fanalrino (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Simon (entrepreneur)

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

Accepted at AFC in 2015, but standards were somewhat less exacting then. Simon is presented with many references, but appears to be a WP:ROTM businessman dabbling in psychedelic drugs. Much of the rest appears to be wealthy persons hobbies. The references, especially the more authoritative ones, seem to be what Simon says, not what is said about him. Sample checking the others shows them to be of a similar nature. Fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Medicine, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Sharkey

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

A non-notable businessperson fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO; contested draftification returned to mainspace with no improvements. The sources are all WP:PRIMARYSOURCE Q&A interviews ([20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]; routine news in WP:TRADES publications ([26]); non-independent affiliated sources/official bios ([27], [28], [29], [30]); and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs ([31], [32], [33]). A non-bylined piece in WP:FORBES is not considered reliable. There is also a WP:FOXNEWS profile that reads like churnalism (it is almost entirely based on comments she posted on Facebook). Both Forbes and Fox are of questionable reliability per WP:RSP. Meanwhile, in my WP:BEFORE search I looked for evidence that her book Dreaming Green had been reviewed, but I only found one single-paragraph capsule review and thus she does not qualify under WP:NAUTHOR. Finally, the article claims she is an Emmy and Peabody winner, but the sources for this claim are all affiliated with her (usually her official bio provided with speaking engagements and press releases). The Emmy site does not list her in its list of winners and nominees. (It appears that she may have won a NY Regional Emmy as part of a larger news team, which is generally not considered the kind of "major award" to qualify one under WP:ANYBIO.) She also does not appear in the search results for Peabody award winners or on the Dupont Award's website. Overall, no sources that are both reliable and independent validate her claims to major awards. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, News media, and New York. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I at least found some more for the book.

Unsure currently about awards and things. Silver seren^C 23:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Enough sources provided to pass WP:SIGCOV.24eeWikiUser (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: 24eeWikiUser (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Which sources are SIGCOV?? Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Impressive deletion nominating statement that any editors arguing to Keep will have to counter.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. On further review/reflection, the only book review of any substance is the Universal Press Syndicate review flagged by Silver seren. The others are single-paragraph capsule summaries. I don't think there's a pass here on NCREATIVE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References seem tangential at best and often advertorial. Reading the article in its current form, it's unclear how notability thresholds could be eventually met. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 13:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gilman Louie

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

non-notable person who created an article about themselves. 1keyhole (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article has been expanded since creation, and Gilmanl's current authorship is around 3%, so I'm not too concerned there. Notability is the bigger concern. The coverage in The Christian Science Monitor is significant, reliable (see WP:CSMONITOR), secondary, and independent. Finding a second source is harder. Most other sources the article cites are not independent, unless the government [34] counts as independent. A Vox article [35] I found may have significant enough coverage, or it may not. More than one sentence addresses Louie directly. Regardless, being on the Foreign Affairs Policy Board might mean WP:NPOL applies. I'm at a weak keep for now. PrinceTortoise (he/him) ^{(poke • inspect)} 07:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Video games, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: This is from an old magazine [36], with the Christian Science Monitor, should have enough. Oaktree b (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not sure if this is the same person [37], was involved in Tetris coming to popularity. Oaktree b (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Asa Vines

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

Not notable business person. Lost in Quebec (talk) 09:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Texas. Lost in Quebec (talk) 09:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 11:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grema Sulaiman

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

All the sources Fail WP: GNG. Being a director of a non-notable organization does not count toward WP:SNG. Ibjaja055 (talk) 05:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject is of high notability in the Federal Republic of Nigeria. He is a prominent energy figure who advocated for the establishment of key energy initiatives, including the Nigeria Energy Transition Fund (NET-FUND), an innovative financing model to propel Nigeria’s energy transition, which acquired $2bn in Foreign Direct Investment into the country. He is a well-known figure in Nigeria and in the Nigerian energy industry at large.

While an editor claims that the Centre for Energy Investment and Innovation (an organization the subject leads) lacks notability, this does/should not diminish the subject's recognition/notability. Reputable sources such as Vanguard, Premium Times, and This Day have consecutively reported about the subject. See [38] and [39] [40] [41].

The article may require improvement and minor edits, but this should not serve as a ground for deletion. Instead, it should be seen as an opportunity to expand the article and provide more context, keeping in mind that a lack of citations should not automatically lead to deletion unless it severely impacts the article's verifiability. Gonisulaimann (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Being associated with notable individuals or organizations does not automatically make a subject notable. Most of the sources, if not all, do not explicitly discuss the topic, although they are reliable. However, they are not independent, and the article fails to meet both the General Notability Guideline WP:GNG and the Subject Specific Notability Guideline WP:SNG.Royalesignature (talk). 05:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Thanks for providing all these references but kindly note that most of the provided references are dependent of the subject and mostly of subject opinion. Royalesignature (talk). 05:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject meets the notability guidelines under WP:GNG due to significant independent coverage in reputable sources as the initial editor stressed. The article should be improved instead of deleted. These links may help in better referencing. [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] Agballer (talk) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Agbaballer (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
Delete: Bypassed AfC. None of these sources has an in-depth coverage about this subject nor is there any significant coverage about him. This WP:WALLOFTEXTs does not fix the issue either. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Bombarded with references to pretend to be notable, that's not what we want. I have also tagged Agbaballer's !vote above as a canvassed !voter, because you cannot possibly edit English Wikipedia lastly on 31 October 2023 and then come in November 2024 to "cast a vote" in an AfD. This is not a poll. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, it is observed that Agbaballer originally added a comment and not a keep vote, I have no idea why @Cameremote: changed the comment to a keep !vote. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I purely did that out of editor's curiosity and that does not in any way relate to canvassing or enticing. You can check my log, i have been blanking this page and other related pages to get accustomed to how Wikipedia works, as i have never encountered an AFD Discussion (which i understand is against the guidelines). As per the user Agbaballer, i have no affiliations with him/her. I will advise to disengage from unnecessary accusations or assumptions. @Hello Pookie :)
Cameremote (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cameremote Hello, I must admit I struggled to understand the points you raised above. However, it is clear that you made this edit, which altered Agbaballer's comment into what appeared as a "keep" !vote until Reading Beans reinstated it. To reiterate, Agbaballer is undoubtedly a canvassed user, and there's no disputing this. My original delete rationale already provides a detailed justification for this position.

Please keep in mind that English Wikipedia is not a platform for trivial discussions or games; it operates with a high degree of seriousness and professionalism. I would kindly ask that we avoid debating over what is plainly evident. Thank you. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Before concluding on anything, kindly re-check the article's references. To me, the subject seems decently notable given the provided context. All references point to his position held starting from appointment. The initial nominator argued that (Being a director of a non-notable organization). In this case, I argue that as far as the subject's notability is established, the institution or organization he/he leads should not directly diminish the subject's recognition/notability. There are instances here on Wikipedia where a subject is directly tied to a non-notable organization, yet their information is not brought down. The same ideology should be applied here because the subject's notability is established independently. Hence, The article passes WP:NG and WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameremote (talk • contribs) 01:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC) struck double !vote. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 02:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reading Beans did @Cameremote deleted their previous vote? I can only see where they added a comment then a keep vote here and not two votes as you claimed. Tesleemah (talk) 09:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tesleemah, Did you see this? Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 10:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotten that!

They changed username recently as I was seeing Gonisulaiman and Cameremote Tesleemah (talk) 11:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding change of name, i did that to avoid conflict of interest and to stay neutral. Cameremote (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine Tesleemah (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia's AfD policy, I did not cast two separate votes. My second "Keep" was a further clarification of my initial vote, which was originally intended as a comment. If reviewed properly, it demonstrates an elaboration of my reasoning from the first phase to the relisted phase, which is allowed under AfD procedures.

"If an editor does so, they should provide clear reasoning for their change of opinion. This could be seen as a clarification or expansion of their initial vote rather than casting a new vote."

So I'm just basically re-iterating my stance and this does not imply a second vote. Cameremote (talk) 11:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Johri

AfDs for this article:

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

References do not demonstrate significant coverage by multiple sources. Brandon (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Technology. Brandon (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maharashtra, California, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 06:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionism is a cancer that must be opposed at all costs. Speedy Keep 99.122.52.226 (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article appears to fail WP:NPERSON. Sources are essentially PR or interviews. The above comment offers no policy based argument and is solely a WP:ADHOMINEM attack. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:31, 3 December 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of the sources in the article, only two might count as independent significant coverage, cites 2 and 3. But 2 is based at least partly, if not entirely on press releases. This is not enough to meet the GNG. Toadspike [Talk] 09:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]