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

Megan Dalla-Camina

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

A highly promotional bio of an individual who fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. The sources in the article comprise:

WP:PRIMARYSOURCE Q&A interviews ([1], [2], [3]) and official bios ([4], [5])
Self-authored content (Fast Company)
WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS (Elle, B&T)
A Forbes contributor, an unreliable source per WP:FORBESCON;
Promotional marketing content ([6], [7])

My WP:BEFORE search turned up more of the same kind of content, nothing qualifying. I also searched for book reviews to see if she passed WP:NAUTHOR for any of her books, but I found only a single independent review for Women Rising, so there's no pass on that criterion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Australia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy O. E. Lang

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate reliable sources to support notability. Unsuccessful political candidate, per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, unelected candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — the inclusion bar at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, while unsuccessful candidates get articles only if they can be shown to already have preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacy. But this article as written is not properly demonstrating his notability as a non-profit executive, either: it's based almost entirely on primary sources that are not support for notability, such as content self-published by directly affiliated organizations and pieces of his own writing, while the only reliable source in the batch is just a glancing namecheck of his existence as a provider of soundbite in an article about something else rather than any evidence of coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Yee

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

Article clearly failing general notability guidelines and references are not seems to be reliable. Nxcrypto Message 11:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Business. Nxcrypto Message 11:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Non notable entrepreneur and founder of a non notable company. Sources cited in article are non RS and not even about the subject of the article but his company. Nothing in the article that brings him close to passing inclusion criteria. Mekomo (talk) 12:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only bring up Olympic athletes with similar names. I'm not sure what the SVO Elite club is or why being a member is notable. The award given by the SVO also doesn't seem notable. What's left is a two line sentence about founding a company, and having twins. Neither of which is terribly notable. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Bet-David

AfDs for this article:

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

This page was already deleted in June 2024 as it failed to meet WP:GNG. Somebody has recreated it in November 2024. Edit: having read the new sources, I am not convinced there is sufficient coverage to meet GNG. The Spectator source seems to be the only one with a focus on him, and it’s reliability seems questionable. Other editors may like to evaluate. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, News media, and Entertainment. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This was passed through the WP:AFC process[8] and WP:G4 presumably doesn't apply. This doesn't mean a guaranteed keep, but it does mean that the nomination should be closed as Speedy Keep WP:SKCRIT#3 (unless Zenomonoz can update their nom with an proper rationale ref WP:DEL-REASON before someone gets to it) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have updated. Thanks. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - struck. Pinging AFC reviewer Grahaml35 for comment. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Same as the last two AfD, non-notable business person with passing mentions in sources. Being a podcaster isn't notable in 2024. I'd SALT at this point, three times in AfD is more than enough. Oaktree b (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Florida. Skynxnex (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was claims that the sources were not reliable but as this individual has become more notable, more reliable sources have been published. Therefore being approved despite being deleted. Avaldcast (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Patrick Bet-David played a notable role in the 2024 presidential election discourse by hosting significant figures such as Donald Trump on his podcast tour. His platform, Valuetainment, served as a space for Trump to engage with his base and discuss campaign messaging, drawing millions of views and contributing to public conversations about the election. Bet-David’s interviews with Trump and other political figures have been widely covered in reliable sources like Vanity Fair and The Spectator, highlighting his influence in political media. This demonstrates that Bet-David is a public figure of notability, with substantial impact on contemporary political dialogue. Avaldcast (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Favour Agam

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

Not yet notable by WP:NMODEL, WP:BIO or WP:GNG. The only coverage I can find of him online is tame interviews like the sources currently cited, with no significant secondary coverage in reliable sources. Wikishovel (talk) 12:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Fashion, and Nigeria. Wikishovel (talk) 12:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. references dont seem in-depth and are just interviews. Not notable. Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 12:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NMODEL or WP:ANYBIO. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He started his "journey of discovery" in August 2023 [9], then has zero coverage until September 2024 [10]. A whole 5 hits in Gnews, 4 from September 2024. Very puffy articles, I'm not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sirous Ahmadi

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

2 google news hits and nothing in Google Books. Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. Being an immigration consultant hardly adds to notability. LibStar (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Sportspeople, Iran, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:AUTHOR. Herinalian (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He passes GNG because of significant coverage by different sources. Also he was a member of Iran national canoeing team (IRNA) and won the third place in Asian Canoeing Championships in 2004.(IRNA). Ali Pirhayati (talk) 10:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both the sources you have supplied are 1 line mentions and do not meet WP:SIGCOV. I don't see him meeting WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 10:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added the sources for his canoeing to the page. His record-setting has been covered by several media as well. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 10:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you declared your connection to him? duffbeerforme (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have any connection to him. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 07:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That photo you took of him? How then did that come about? duffbeerforme (talk) 07:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very good question, duffbeer. Please answer the question. There's a potential conflict of interest here. LibStar (talk) 08:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the pictures of hundreds of people to Wikipedia; do I have a connection to all of them!? Sometimes I try to access copyright-free pictures of the subjects for whom I created a page through emailing them. In this case too, long after I created his page, I received a copyright-free picture. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 08:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So are you now saying that you lied about taking it? And that your are not, as you claimed, the copyright holder? duffbeerforme (talk) 08:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the copyright-holder, like this one and many others. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 11:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. specially that part about being a member of Iran canoeing team. he was just a member but never won anything major. the page creator claims he won a medal at the Asian Canoeing Championship and provides a source for that. but that's not correct. the source says it was the Central/West Asian Championship not the main Asian Canoeing Championships. Sports2021 (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manya Pathak

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

Non-notable subject created by a blocked user. I have removed a lot of unsourced material, poorly sourced puffery, and unnecessary details. I have verified all the sources, but the notability of the subject remains uncertain. Zuck28 (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Television, Business, and India. Zuck28 (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BLP. Sources couldn't help in establishing notability Garudam ^Talk! 12:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. a non notable actress. Lack of independent and reliable sources. TheWikiholic (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR as sources in the article is dominated by download websites. Mekomo (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Web Desk post [11], doesn't seem to show much for notability otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appearing in one TV show as a supporting cast member and in fewer than a dozen music videos is barely a career, much less a notable one. It's a side gig. Bearian (talk) 03:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Mangione

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

I fail to see the notability of the father of the shooter in the Brian Thompson killing. Being the father alone does not grant such notability, and the enterprises Louis Mangione is head of were also created the same time and day this article was, by the same user. The known for is also a bit egregious, "known for being the heir to the Mangione family fortune". I don't think much of anyone before two days ago even knew the Mangione family fortune existed. Ré union! 08:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is irrelevant who created the article, why, or when. What matters is whether the subject is notable and whether there are reliable sources attesting to that. Based on that argument, you could have also nominated Nicholas Mangione for deletion, but you opted not to. Prior to recent events, Louis Mangione was mentioned by the Baltimore Sun here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here and by the Washington Post here, here, here, here, here, and here. He served as Vice President of Mangione Family Enterprises for decades and is now the head of the Mangione family fortune. All of that demonstrates his notability in the local business community. His son's recent actions simply shine further coverage on the family, which has been covered amply by the Baltimore and Washington, D.C. press for decades. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 09:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Maryland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bohemian Baltimore.-🐦DrWho42👻 10:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why delete information? 2600:1702:540:6BF0:4403:38E5:2AA8:F46C (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because WP:NOTEVERYTHING Geschichte (talk) 10:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I went through every single one of Bohemian Baltimore's sources, and not a one of them is about Mangione; they are all about real-estate controversies loosely involving a Mangione property, with one or two brief quotes from Mangione sprinkled in. As for the references in the article, references 2 and 8 are the only ones I'd consider SIGCOV, and they are only talking about this individual in the context of the shooting. The article is a hybrid WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTINHERITED violation. Clearly this individual is not notable beyond the events of the past week. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WeirdNAnnoyed - Wikipedia:Notability says that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 12:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: So he's a buisnessman with a son that says he did bad things, not proven in court yet. If this was brought up to AfD six months ago, we'd delete it. Same reasoning applies, his business enterprise is not notable, he's only being talked about because of his son. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the analysis by WeirdNAnnoyed and my own at the sources, which do not include significant coverage. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — It is irrelevant who created the article, why, or when. I'd say when the article was created is critical here. When other editors invoke "the sum total of human knowledge" in reference to this project and I poke holes in their arguments large enough to drive a 747 through, there's a reason why it's met with denial and suppression. There's far more to "the sum total of human knowledge" than parroting the agenda of the legacy media and writing about little else. If BB's laundry list of sources going back decades really meant anything, then I shouldn't be looking at an article that's only about 12 hours old. Wikipedia repeatedly shows its lack of credibility by newly creating biographies as a reaction to the subject's death, when the real world saw the person as notable decades ago. In addition to the WP:WHATEVER invoked by WeirdNAnnoyed above, there's also WP:COATRACK. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WeirdNAnnoyed. I also did my own research on Newspapers.com to see if there were any articles from The Baltimore Sun about Mangione himself, as there were about his father, and could only find articles about his proposed real-estate developments, in which he is mentioned one or two times and not as the primary subject. Y2hyaXM (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. The only reason the family or family friend has requested deletion is because they’re worried about their reputation. The public should know about anyone running a “family enterprise” …especially when their ultra-privileged offspring murders a man who came from a rural, working-class family and worked for over 20 years to make CEO with a bachelors degree from a state school. If that isn’t ironic enough, the CEO made far less money than his own parents. There is a nation-wide conversation about wealth right now, and the Mangione’s shouldn't get to opt out. 2600:1008:B218:2C3F:F0FA:33BB:D96D:23E5 (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Mangiones 2600:1008:B218:2C3F:F0FA:33BB:D96D:23E5 (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That man wasn't known a week ago, and appears to have a rather ho-hum business career, that's not quite notable for here. Oaktree b (talk) 05:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it funny how here I'm accused of being related to the Mangiones. I have absolutely no relation to him, nor do I know any of his family. He is simply not relevant enough to be on the site, as users WeirdNAnnoyed and RadioKAOS have articulated far better than I can. Ré union! 05:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Bohemian Baltimore. He clearly has has significant coverage. However, there is precedent from 2007 that this article could still be deleted to protect individuals only tangentially connected with a major crime; the subject made a direct appeal to Jimbo Wales, and then not only was the article deleted and salted, but the two AfDS were memory holed. Bearian (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oaktree b. This likely fails notability. Especially as most, if not all notability, is because of Luigi - not Louis or his career. Synorem (talk) 11:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. E_F⁵ 15:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, several reliable sources cover Louis. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bohemian Baltimore, he's notable for reasons other than his son killing some big CEO. KmartEmployeeTor (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Idek mann (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was on the fence about this one, but as time goes on there are more sources being added that support his relevancy outside of his son.Thief-River-Faller (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete Yes, there are reliable sources, and what they reliably show is that he's a reasonably successful business person of no particular note except for that son of his, whose notoriety he does not inherit. And yes, the timing does matter, because two decades of lack of interest in him here is already evidence for his lack of notability. Look if the Sun or someone were to put up a profile of him that would be a stronger argument, but when you compare his article to his father's, the paucity here is really very obvious. Mangoe (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Bohemian Baltimore OsageOrange (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Paterson

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

Fails GNG & SiGCOVERAGE. ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 09:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wine, Bibliographies, and Scotland. ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 09:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hints of notability [12], but that's about all I could find. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I remembered seeing him a few times in the news over the years so had a deeper look. There were quite a few references naming him across Scottish but also international media. I've made an attempt to rescue the article using those sources, edit it, add some 20+ references. I think it now meets notability criteria. Coldupnorth (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have been keeping this open on my computer wondering what to do with it, but User:Coldupnorth has now done that. Thanks and well done. Bduke (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anjana Seth

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

I can only find routine coverage from fashion shows and brand PR, which is not enough for GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Fashion, and India. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Odisha-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage in any media that I can find, Gsearch only brings up social media sites. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Businesspeople. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No Media Articles found, non-notable - Herodyswaroop (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable fashion designer. Fails WP:GNG Zuck28 (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of health insurance executives in the United States

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Fails WP:NOT, specifically WP:CROSSCAT. Even if this does stay it should be broadened to List of health insurance chief executives (Similar to Category:American_health_care_chief_executives) and be a category, not a random listicle only including the "top 50". Jcmcc (Talk) 13:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Organizations, and Lists. Jcmcc (Talk) 13:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or extensively rework, per Jcmcc450. While there might be a place for an article with this title, it would have to have a much broader scope - including both present and past executives for said companies, expanding the number of companies discussed, and adding more information about the health insurance executives themselves such as their tenure. The sourcing would also have to be far stronger, beyond merely the pages for the health insurance companies themselves. This would likely be a rework so fudnamental that it would render the article unrecognizable, but it is the only good alternative to deletion. As it stands, considering current events, the 'Notable former executives' section, and the timing of its creation, this reads less like a Wikipedia article and more like a hit list. RWall514 (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the top 50 companies by whatever metric is arbitrary. I suggest having the article list the chief executive of companies notable by Wikipedia's standards is a better scope and have updated the article to reflect that. Also see List of chief executive officers. It seems like the article can likely be improved as an alternative to deletion. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Timing is very suspect and does make it much harder to search for sources under WP:NLIST, but I couldn't find anything independent of the recent shooting that mentions the CEO's as a group. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, this isn't List of health insurance executives in the United States on a hit list, so I don't think the dependence of the shooting should negate those sources. I'm not advocating that though. I also think delete because the grouping is not significantly covered. Conyo14 (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The chief executives of health insurance companies have been covered in reliable & secondary sources over several years as a group in the context of executive compensation (NPR, STAT News, Becker's Hospital Review, STAT News, Hartford Courant) and more recently, the context of security (The Hill, STAT News). GeorgiaHuman (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here isn't whether or not it is sourced, but notable. The grouping (CEO's of health insurance executives in the United States) doesn't appear to be notable or specifically sourced in any way. This is why it fails WP:CROSSCAT. If this were a category (not a list-article) of all health-related organization CEO's past and present would be far more appropriate as it could be used to support the project. As it stands, even if this were converted to a category, it would be very challenging to maintain (keeping it up to date with the "current" CEO's and only applying it to specifically the top 50 Health insurance Orgs again, subject to change) Jcmcc (Talk) 00:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as failing WP:CROSSCAT and WP:NLIST. The timing, the mention of Johnson and the fact that the only detail is about compensation packages is highly suspect and the article creator should probably be on a list somewhere. Astaire (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you're arguing for more lists, not less. 120.22.16.98 (talk) 08:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Feels suspect re timing, and we don't need articles simply listing execs in particular industires. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than Delete due to WP:CROSSCAT, the article should become wider, such as "List of health ensurance chief executives", period. Worldwide. This on its own should also mitigate the notability issue. As a Brazilian, I am willing to source executives from my country. MandRaiden (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Health insurance in the United States is enough for now. Dympies (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:NLIST and the timing. Multiple previous vandal edits include "Hit" or "Hit List of chief executive officers Effective immediately".--Chefmikesf (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That you bring up which kind of vandal edits were made to the page just highlights that the delete rationales are not based on Wikipedia policies or any reasoning. It does not fail the policy you linked for example because it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources and the timing is irrelevant to whether or not an article is to be kept. Per policy, decisions should be made not based on vote-counts but on rationales/reasoning/discussion. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep its a part of what is arguably a historical event. make it larger and expand it to a worldwide scope maybe. but dont delete. MildLoser (talk) 10:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is about the Killing of Brian Thompson, then that article already exists as linked. Jcmcc (Talk) 17:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is just textbook WP:RECENTISM. 1) We're not a crystal ball and so are in no position to establish if this is "arguably a historical event" (everything is a historical event, but we'll say a highly notable one). 2) This list, while hastily constructed by GH as a direct response to the killing of Brian Thompson, is highly incidental to it. 3) There's really no such thing as "expanding it to a worldwide scope", because for most health insurance executives even in the US, we're already scraping the bottom of the barrel here with this six-item list (arguably two of which don't even warrant their own article). And the US has the categorically most dramatically privatized health insurance system in the entire developed world that I know of and thus should yield the most notable health insurance executives. I would suggest that you try creating a concrete example worldwide list in your sandbox before suggesting that this be moved without any evidence that it would improve things. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RWall514. It would be good to convert this list into a table with more details about each like relevant qualifications. The timing for this list may be bad but one has to admit that currently there is a lot of discussion and news reports about the article's subject (btw due to that it's now a "culturally significant phenomenon"). More articles like it would be useful to e.g. compare politicians' qualifications or CEO salaries across countries. It does not fail WP:CROSSCAT, e.g. it's not a "cross-categorization" and is encyclopedic. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia is a reference for public information. These people are of financial and medical note. I agree with MildLoser that it need not be exclusively US-focused. Amber388 (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly if a List of Pokémon is notable so are real world CEOs. Naturally the list needs clear cut criteria, then it wouldn't be open ended but eventually come to a natural conclusion. The criteria shouldn't be too strict though, lest we cut the list short. We certainly shouldn't overshoot when deleting content. As for design, bullet points seem the logical choice but maybe a table instead would be better? Anyway, the page hits already show that the content is of interest. The listed CEOs so far all have articles, even with professional headshots, so clearly notability is given. Maybe a minimum annual salary would be a good criteria for inclusion. If it was based on that an international comparison could be educative. --SchallundRauch (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Certainly if a List of Pokémon is notable so are real world CEOs" - that's not how this works. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Pokemon Test. Just because Vaporeon has a page, doesn't mean some CEO should have one. ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 16:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See List of chief executive officers for a similar article that has been kept at AfD. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This is not similar enough to warrant discussion (even if WP:WHATABOUT were generally valid), because your list is incredibly restrictive to the point of effective uselessness, whereas that one isn't. Being a chief executive officer of a company with over $10 billion in revenue is substantially less restrictive than being an executive of a health insurance company which operates in the United States. You'll note List of chief executive officers is 1) worldwide (something this article couldn't even benefit from expanding to because of the uniquely messed up state of US healthcare), and 2) operating in any kind of industry. Moreover, that article actually has a completely objective criterion to gatekeep inclusion in the form of "companies with revenue over $10 billion", whereas you cobbled this one together without regard for this sort of good, common practice in lists. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as standard index of people by occupation per WP:LISTPURP and WP:NOTDUP. Should Category:American health care chief executives be deleted? Expand and improve. Mbdfar (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep* Note there are several other pages with executives of various companies and industries, like this List of Paramount Pictures executives or the List of railroad executives. This deletion request is clearly related to recent events, and this article is also clearly related to them with its timing – however, just because the timing of the article creation lines up with something doesn't mean that this article is inappropriate. If we have something as niche as a list of Paramount Pictures executives, then a list of health insurance executives is far more important to be included. Kopf1988 (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This kind of textbook whataboutist argument often gets brought up at AfD discussions, and it isn't compelling. 1) Whereas List of Paramount Pictures executives has actual, unambiguous criteria, this list in the nom clearly doesn't (see, for example, what I talked about on the talk page). 2) I would argue that because they're never seemingly discussed in reliable, independent sources as a group that 'List of Paramount Pictures executives' probably ought to be axed itself. 3) List of railroad executives should be cleaned up to remove those without a corresponding article, but here's something you're failing to grasp here: that list is able to be so long because it has two only criteria – firstly, you need to be in the railroad industry, and secondly, you need to be an executive.

List of health insurance executives in the United States is so, so lacking in blue links because the following criteria need to be met: a) in the insurance industry; b) specifically in health insurance; c) an executive; d) in the United States; and (unstated because this list was created for soapboxing and thus the inclusion criteria are vague and clumsily established) e) you should be a current executive of the company. The inclusion criteria are both hyper-specific in the kind of job you have to be in (like 'List of Paramount Pictures executives') but simultaneously completely unclear as to the threshold for inclusion (like 'List of railroad executives, where even redlinks are included seemingly at random). Thus, you get the worst facets of these two arguably poor lists you've cited. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lists don't need to be strictly made of blue links per WP:AOAL, where it is encouraged to "include entries which are not sufficiently notable to deserve their own articles, and yet may be sufficiently notable to incorporate into the list". Mbdfar (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. In taxonomic articles, where large portions end up being red links to child taxa which are themselves considered inherently notable, this is a crucial component to building out the encyclopedia. However, lists have to have some sort of defined, auditable scope that inherently constrains the size. As I noted at the talk page, these include 1) A title that automatically makes it so that people can easily audit when a list is complete (such as child taxa or officially licensed games made for a specific console), 2) an arbitrary cut-off of n elements based on a certain metric (such as cutting it off at the 50th or 100th most x thing), 3) a similar cut-off except defining a high floor for x instead of fixing the number of elements n (such as cutting off companies under $10 billion in revenue), and 4) only permitting list items which either already have a Wikipedia article or (if a red link) for which the notability isn't contentious. Often for criterion 4, articles will have a commented out subset of these items which may be notable but which don't currenlty have articles. This functions as a compromise for facilitating expansion while also not becoming a landfill for redlinks of questionable notability. The fact that GH wasn't even using redlinks and was just throwing in CEOs seemingly at random tells me they didn't care so much about expansion based on notability and moreso that they wanted to treat this list like an indiscriminate landfill. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This list is hyper-specific and extremely poorly made in a way that it's only "useful" as construed by recent outrage spurred by the killing of Brian Thompson. You can see my suggestion on the article's talk page to make this a potentially viable list, and to my mind, it's clear nothing like that is actually workable. GeorgiaHuman's conduct since December 4th has shown me very clearly that this article was made with soapboxing in mind, not because they seriously thought that it meets something like WP:NLIST. Keep in mind that this nomination is currently being brigaded from Reddit (weird how with that, there's a sudden influx of 'keeps' after all the 'deletes'), and I think it's a serious wake-up call that we might want to keep these sorts of high-profile deletion discussions semi-protected to protect the integrity and make sure they're high-quality and based on policy instead of just off-site brigading from people with almost no grasp of policy or guidelines (edit: to clarify: at least in this case, /r/wikipedia is more likely to understand policy and guidelines, but brigading often comes from sources with literally no knowledge of these principles and derails discussion). TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is specific, but not hyper-specific. List of United States insurance companies currently has almost 40 notable insurance companies. This list of CEOs, if kept, could potentially have several entries per company. Seems like an appropriate amount of content and useful for navigation. Mbdfar (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main caveat with List of United States insurance companies, which I did see when trying to give the nom a concrete inclusion criteria, is that every single one of the items (except one, which I'm going to remove as non-conforming with the others) have their own article (and as you can see, the fact that it's just companies and not tethered to health dramatically increases the number of articles listed; it's dramatically less specific because we axe two majorly limiting criteria from this one). It seems that ZimZalaBim did what I should've done a few days ago which is to remove all of the execs who weren't notable enough for their own articles (at least counteracting some of GH's worst tendencies as an editor), but even then, something like Sarah London and Jim Rechtin are very arguably non-notable (they were created recently as minimally cited stubs expressly as a response to the killing of Brian Thompson). And unfortunately, opening up this article to 'List of health insurance executives' probably doesn't help that either, simply because the US is – if I'm not mistaken – one of two developed countries in the world with this kind of absolutely screwed up private health insurance system, the other being Switzerland. And I'm sincerely doubtful more than even one Swiss health insurance exec is notable enough for inclusion. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that it used to resemble the top 40 list before people decided to delete half of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_health_insurance_executives_in_the_United_States&oldid=1262191393 Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per reasoning of Users Kopf1988 and MildLoser. - L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but consider broadening the scope of the article per nom Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 22:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. ~ HAL333 23:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Close w/o prejudice for renom This article is undergoing an edit war over the inclusion criteria. I a disappointed in certain well established editors, who should know better than to enter in an edit war over this. [13] [14] The problem is the inclusion criteria, and we can't judge the article on its merits when that question isn't settled. This whole discussion would have been better resolved through an RfC, than by nominating the article at AfD and people blanking half of it. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above and expand to different industries. Pedrogmartins (talk) 02:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NLIST. Rare examples of actual WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argumentation in this discussion. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mild keep. This isn't currently a great list, but I don't think it's categorically improper under WP:CROSSCAT; that would be something like "list of insurance executives who play the accordion". Health insurance executive has been a well-recognized category of American executive for generations. Health insurance executives have featured, inter alia, as a group called before Congressional hearings and as the subjects of surveys (there could be numerous additional links for both of those). Discussions about them as a group (and their pay) have been a fixture of every wave of national health care discussion since at least the 1990s. I am inclined to agree with the comments above that the concerns over scope and quality of the list are best addressed by iterative improvement through the wiki process. That said, with an eye to such improvements, I think this would support the encyclopedia much better as part of a detailed List of health insurance companies in the United States, which could contain fields for CEO information and also put that information in a more meaningful context. (The existing List of United States insurance companies#Health insurance (major medical insurance) is sadly little more than a navigation aid, but could be the beginning of something.)
As an aside, I am concerned by the above bludgeoning of keep !voters with charges of whataboutism. There should be no place on Wikipedia for this kind of hostility to thoughtful dissent. Using WP:WHATABOUT to attempt to discredit any and all arguments from analogy simply reduces that essay to absurdity. After all, [a]nalogical reasoning is one of the most common methods by which human beings try to understand the world and make decisions. Moreover, our PAGs derive their legitimacy, if any, from accurately reflecting actual practice, so attempting to discount arguments simply for being based on actual practice is literally as far from a policy-based argument as it is possible to be. -- Visviva (talk) 05:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I was going to say delete, but then looked at five or six other entries in Category:Lists_of_businesspeople, and they’re all way worse than this. So while maybe there’s a broader discussion to be had about how lists that just duplicate categories should all be culled, this article doesn’t just do that. And I’d argue, also, that it doesn’t fail CROSSCAT as it’s not an arbitrary selection of criteria; the US health insurance industry and the levels of recompense of its CEOs has been often discussed in print media, so the criteria are sufficiently interwoven. Fish+Karate 07:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CROSSCAT and failing WP:NLIST. A lot of the keep votes seem quite policy deficient, with arguments that amount to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:ITSIMPORTANT, WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT, etc. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now This article was created a few days ago. I think it’s eminently reasonable to allow some time to ascertain whether WP:NLIST is met (my intuition says it can be shown to be if it hasn’t already been somewhere in the comments above).

I think the WP:CROSSCAT argument is rather weak since it interprets the policy as covering “Americans” as a group, which is a tight squeeze. That’s neither commonsensical nor supported by the extensive coverage in RS of the topic.

Is the timing of creation suspect? Well, perhaps, but also not really. Newsworthy events tend to draw editors’ attention to related topics, and it’s perfectly reasonable for the sort of editor who is brave enough to create articles to decide to do so after their attention was directed by news, or widespread internet discussion. And even if the creator had the motivations some above have ascribed to them, there is an extremely wide gap between an editor wanting, say, the names of a group they consider notable for bad behavior to be publicly visible in one place that Google likes, and creating a hit list. Their motivations don’t matter anyway here, since the decision rests on the usual inclusion standards and nothing else. The topic itself appears to be notable, a page as short as the current revision couldn’t conceivably be worth nuking, that should be that as far as I can see.

Per policy, there is no legitimate reason to bandy such terms around, and the delete voters are also making a lot of noise about keep votes being non-policy-based, while by eyeball estimate making fewer and shorter policy arguments themselves.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article cites multiple third-party list articles which themselves group these people together. Also, Wikipedia already has biographies on many of these people, and it is routine to make lists and categories for topics which have things in common, and are as a class the subject of reliable sources, and when topics in the list have Wikipedia articles. We do not need a comprehensive list in third party media to decide who to include. We just need to establish that sources have listed people in this category in any lists of any kind whether short or otherwise, and then we include people who meet those criteria when they also qualify for a Wikipedia article. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This List serves as a valuable and verifiable resource for users interested in understanding the leadership landscape within a critical industry that significantly impacts public policy, economics, and individual well-being. It's importance can be summarize in the following:

(1) Health insurance executives wield substantial influence over healthcare access, affordability, and policy-making in the U.S. By aggregating information about these individuals, the page provides a unique and relevant resource that highlights key players in this VERY high-impact field.

(2) This List is particularly useful for researchers, journalists, and policy analysts investigating trends in corporate governance, healthcare management, or industry consolidation. This List helps us understand the individuals who shape a critical sector of the U.S. economy!

(3) This List should be KEPT! In fact, if properly maintained with verifiable and reliable references, the page aligns with Wikipedia's standards for content reliability. Its continued existence should hinge on maintaining and improving the references, not deletion. We should ADD more to this list to cover ALL of the CEOs, their board members, and executive teams from ALL health insurers in the USA.

(4) ACCOUNTABILITY and TRANSPARENCY are enhanced when information about influential figures, like health insurance executives, is accessible. This aligns with Wikipedia's mission to democratize knowledge! Why are people even talking about gatekeeping this information 🤦

(5) Wikipedia already hosts numerous lists, such as "List of CEOs of Fortune 500 companies," which serve as templates for this type of resource. The presence of this page aligns with similar contributions to the platform's encyclopedic scope. You delete this, just delete them all!

LuciusRex5 (talk) LuciusRex5 (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello all. I would welcome feedback on the current version of the article. I know there were some initial questions about the scope. I took it upon myself to add more links to articles of executives of companies that manage health insurance. Basically, any person who has ever been a c-suite executive or in an executive senior management position (presidents, chairmen). There are probably some missing, and certainly other notable people who do not yet have an article. In my opinion, this is an acceptable length for a list article with room for expansion. Mbdfar (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but expand and improve citation per RWall514 Snokalok (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: This list is not inherently inappropriate, and could be improved, but the timing of its creation is certainly suspect and it is likely to be a vandalism magnet in the near future if kept. As such I think it should be workshopped in draftspace until it meets a higher standard. It can be moved back into mainspace later, provided that it has been sufficiently improved and there is consensus among editors to do so. silviaASH (inquire within) 00:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vimukthi Dushantha

AfDs for this article:

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

Still no sign of notability nor significant coverage. Cutlass ^Ciera 17:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure why we're doing this again - nothing has changed except the subject has apparently paid for more blackhat SEO nonsense. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 17:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Sri Lanka. Shellwood (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I came across this tagged for speedy, but the article is significantly more developed than that version, so I was forced to decline. That said, I was in the process of nominating this myself when I saw User:Cutlass already on it. I'm not seeing anything indepth applied to the page, and my reasonable BEFORE doesn't show much. I get all kinds of COI vibes from this version. Why are we doing this again? Because by deleting it by consensus twice, it will be far more difficult to resurrect it ever again. BusterD (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vimukthi Dushantha meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for public figures due to his significant contributions to journalism, activism, and media in Sri Lanka. Articles in credible sources like Daily Mirror, Al Jazeera, and Right to Life Lanka extensively discuss his work. I propose improvements to the article to further address notability and sourcing concerns. 212.104.231.215 (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:JOURNALIST.The awards he's won aren't significant to pass WP:ANYBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG, The subject lacks sufficient coverage by independent and reliable secondary sources. Baqi:) (talk) 09:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and the his claim Info Sri Lanka, a prominent news website is a fabrication. The site functions as an aggregator of news links from various news websites in Sri Lanka. – NirvanaToday^t@lk 18:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You talking about infolanka (https://www.infolanka.com/news/) website, not Info Sri Lanka (www.infosrilanka.lk) Rawanasinghe (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then, that's even worse. There aren't any website showing up when I visit that link. https://web.archive.org/web/20240823123803/https://www.infosrilanka.lk/ – NirvanaToday^t@lk 11:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phiwa Nkambule

AfDs for this article:

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

So this article was created by Phwaice who seems to be a WP:COI user judging by username and behavior. The article was previously nominated for deletion and the consensus was to redirect to a company article that is now deleted due to lack of notability. The article was then reverted by Carloschilo who also seems to have COI behavior.

The issue is this article from a quick glance seem to be nothing more than a PR puff piece for the subject which is basically WP:PROMO. There’s also issue of notability. The vast majority of sources are basically brief mentions of the subject. You have some which are interviews, so they are not independent. The subject is mentioned in a few lists, but these again seem more like mentions and not really in-depth.

This article probably needs to be rewritten from scratch to comply with Wikipedia standards. That’s assuming we get enough independent in-depth sources of notability. Imcdc Contact 03:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Business, Technology, and Africa. Imcdc Contact 03:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Imcdc Contact 02:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As previously stated my focus is primarily on articles of subjects linked to Eswatini, which are not many unfortunately as the country on has a 1 million population. This country is extremely under-covered. Here are a few examples that show notability of the subject:

1. https://www.google.co.za/books/edition/Entrepreneurs_Who_Changed_History/vAbnDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=phiwa%20nkambule%20entrepreneurs%20who%20changed%20history&pg=PT958&printsec=frontcover

2. https://www.google.co.za/books/edition/Simple_Algorithms/-IdeEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=phiwa%20nkambule%20simple%20coding&pg=PT23&printsec=frontcover

3. https://www.forbesafrica.com/cover-story/2019/10/14/forbes-africa-8-years-and-growing/

4. https://www.forbesafrica.com/under-30/2018/06/04/under-30-technology/

5. https://www.google.co.za/books/edition/Autonomic_Computing/nozJEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=phiwa%20nkambule&pg=PA1946&printsec=frontcover Carloschilo (talk) 09:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources above so far seem to be mainly about another subject but has a brief mention on the current nominated subject with most of them just stating his role founding non-notable companies. Also AFD consensus shows lists like Forbes 30 Under 30 is not considered a reliable source in establishing notability since every year there are 1,230 people under 30 years old placed on the list so it gives the impression it is more of a promotional tool. Notability should not be driven by being on the list although some of the objective information may be used to provide further context on the subject. Imcdc Contact 02:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Spevak

AfDs for this article:

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

Passing mentions in the RS's in the article - most focus on his company, not him. Potential history of COI per article tag from 2020.

The only article I could find where he is the sole subject is this interview from Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/danschawbel/2017/04/07/harvey-spevak-the-leadership-lessons-hes-learned-from-growing-equinox/ Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the prior deletion discussion, this source is a Forbes contributor, so as far as I'm aware it loses its reliability. Notability is not inherited. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anant J Talaulicar

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

fails GNG in the sense that the sourcing presented is either not indepdenent or not significant coverage. Bakhtar40 (talk) 05:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. Bakhtar40 (talk) 05:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Karnataka, Louisiana, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject automatically passes WP:NBUSINESSPERSON being the Chairperson for Cummins India, which is listed among Fortune 500. Additionally, the subject is covered in reputable and reliable sources such as Economic Times, Motor India Magazine, MoneyControl, Hindu Business Line, Business Standard (Inetrview), LiveMint, Economic Times Auto and Motown India which provide valuable insights into his professional career and leadership role at Cummins India, passes WP:ANYBIO and are independent and editorially reliable passing WP:SIGCOV. The strongest one is this--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 13:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being a chairman (only for India) of a company does not signify that the individual is notable. Let's talk about citations: Economic Times - WP:RS-No, Secondary-Yes; Motor India Magazine- Not a reliable source; Secondary-No; MoneyControl- This is an announcement by the company, WP:RS-No, This is an appointment of MD; Hindu Business Line- WP:RS-No, This is the resignation from MD post; Business Standard (Interview)- This is an interview, WP:RS-No; LiveMint- WP:RS-No, Independent-No, Secondary-No; Economic Times Auto- This is again an interview fails WP:SIGCOV; Motown India- Not a reliable source. Bakhtar40 (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakhtar40 Giving some merit to your points, I disagree as well! The WP:NBUSINESSPERSON clearly cites Corporate presidents, chief executive officers and chairpersons of the boards of directors of companies listed in the Fortune 500 (US) or the FTSE 100 Index (UK) are generally kept as notable. Cummins is listed in the Fortune 500 (US), you can verify that with the link mentioned above and also, Cummins India is indeed a part of the global Cummins brand, not a subsidiary or a separate entity under the same founder, it’s the same company operating in India. Thats said, passes the criteria straightway. Additionally, other sources, though not primary, provide valuable supplementary coverages, with the strongest being from the Times-Union. GNG is met!! — MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The rationale for deletion is "fails GNG in the sense that the sourcing presented is either not indepdenent or not significant coverage". But that's not how it works. Please read WP:ARTN. You should always do a WP:BEFORE search before proposing deletion.

@Bakhtar40 On what are you basing your assertions that none of these publications are reliable sources? I just reread WP:RS to see if I had missed anything, and I'm now rather confident that under WP:NEWSORG that most of these very clearly are reliable sources. Economic Times is a publication of the 180-year-old Times of India, the country's most respected newspaper, for example. Could you please provide more evaluation of each publication's reliability than just a "WP:RS-no".
The MoneyControl piece is not an announcement by the company. If you read the text, it's a small article by MoneyControl publishing the company's announcement. While a press release itself doesn't help establish notability because it isn't independent, a newspaper's act of writing a story around a company's announcement does suggest notability.
Interviews are not about establishing reliability. On the contrary, the fact that a fifty-year-old business journal performs and publishes an interview DOES help establish the interviewee's notability. Davemc0 (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to WP:TOI, Times of India and its subsidiaries are not considered as reliable. Moneycontrol is also not a reliable resource. The article is a paid placement. And Interviews generally not count as independent and secondary. Bakhtar40 (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This nominator fails to prove the rationale to the deletion discussion. According to WP:NBUSINESSPERSON, the subject automatically meets notability guidelines. Additionally, the sources provided offer supplementary support that further strengthens the subject’s case for retention. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 16:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I can't find what you're saying at WP:TOI. That's a disambiguation page that points to both The Times of India and WP:TIMESOFINDIA. I assume you're referring to the latter. That table shows TOI in yellow, which means there is NOT CONSENSUS about whether the publication is reliable or not. So how can you claim that that page says it's not reliable? It doesn't. What that page does say is that WP editors should be careful to avoid advertorials in TOI when it comes to sources, especially regarding entertainment news. I'm somewhat confident that this TOI article is not an advertorial because it has a byline (Krishna Kant), and quotes people who don't work for Cummins.

Also, you're claiming that it says that TOI's subsidiaries are not reliable, but it doesn't say anything at all about subsidiaries. In reality, "The Economic Times began publication in 1961 and it is sold in all major cities in India. As of 2023, it is the world's second-most widely read English-language business newspaper, after The Wall Street Journal." Seems pretty darn reliable to me. What are you basing your counter-assertion on?

I don't think you are correct that "Moneycontrol is not a reliable resource". It looks like an extremely legitimate newspaper to me. And while I agree that the small MoneyControl piece is clearly based on a press release, the wording appears to be the newspapers' own. Is there any indication that Cummins paid to print it? The article isn't phrased that way. And in the US, I know it's not the norm to pay papers to have press releases printed.

I agree that the content of an interview would not be secondary, if the interviewee were talking about himself. But the fact that an independent publication chose to perform and publish the interview is a clear indicator of notability.

Finally, while I disagree with deleting this article I do agree with the other two alerts in the article - it reads like a resume and may contain promotional content. But those don't impact notability. Davemc0 (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as they meet WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Ktkvtsh (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Zerban

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

Delete or Redirect. The first is that he was a member of the Kenosha County Board of Commissioners. Local politicians are not automatically notable, nor are they not automatically not notable. Reasons a local politician could be notable are longevity in service (Robert L. Butler, Margaret Doud, or Hilmar Moore) or notable activity in office (Betty Loren-Maltese or Rita Crundwell), the latter of which is probably more a WP:CRIME who was also a politician. The second is his candidacies for Congress. I simply do not see the "historic significance" test being passed here given the last election was over ten years ago at this point. A clear failure of WP:POLITICIAN. Similar AfDs resulted in a delete/redirect in Andy Anderson, Bill Proctor, Veron Parker, and Steve Sarvi. Mpen320 (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails our threshold levels of WP:POLITICIAN. (Full disclosure: I may have donated some money to one or more of his Congressional races, since I despise his opponent.) --Orange Mike | Talk 21:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - arguably passes WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It is generally understood that routine mention or even interviews of unsuccessful candidates by local press does not really constitute significant coverage of the individual as an individual. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC) (unsuccessful candidate in the past)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Illinois, and Wisconsin. Skynxnex (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Adams

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

Notability is not inherited, and founding a (maybe) notable company doesn't make the person notable. Found no reliable sources online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Cryptocurrency. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.forbes.com/profile/hayden-adams/ he was 30 under 30 in finance (2023) https://www.forbes.com/30-under-30/2023/finance Szenon (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it is best to make a multiple page AFD when one nominates two related pages at the same time. It would be best to merge this AFD with the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Uniswap_Labs one. IgelRM (talk) 02:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Uniswap. WP:TOOSOON for a standalone article. Veldsenk (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Uniswap or Uniswap Labs Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Uniswap or Uniswap Labs. although The Economist has a review of it. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samson Arega Bekele

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable businessman. All sources are PR, and I found no reliable sources online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Aviation, and Ethiopia. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the {{not a ballot}} template on top, seeing how the previous AfD was filled with socks and SPAs. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did my research and read the previous AfD as well. The issues raised in the previous AfD were addressed. I do not think it is right to say sources are PR. For instance, the source with https://aec.afdb.org/ is from African Economic Conference (the equivalent of World Economic Conference in Africa) of African Development Bank (the equivalent of World Bank in Africa). My judgement is that an institution of this nature cannot be regarded as PR Source. Again, from my research, one of the sources TimesKuwait has been in the media space since 1996 and another The African Times have been around since 1989. These are independent sources in their own right. Another source - https://aviationbusinessjournal.aero/ is an influential aviation magazine. Since the subject is a top airline business executive, the rest sources are travel and aviation magazines including one that is associated with Havard. So I think the claim questioning the reliability of the sources is wrong. Again, compare the first article and this article and you will see that all issues violated by the first editor were fixed in this new article. The subject is a notable african airline executive in Africa and North America and I think it should stay with subsequent improvements as with all wikipedia articles. Cheers ! Astra Los Angeles (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, it's not a puffy as last time, but the "group vice president for customer experience" is very much a mid-level business executive, just above the rank and file. Sourcing now is largely from trade magazines, so nothing has changed since last time. Still a !delete. Oaktree b (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The VP is not a mid-level executive. See this [15] Further research here [16] also shows that there are C, V, D and B level executives and the only category rated as mid level executives here are the B level [17]. VPs fall under the V-suite that are rated senior executives and their roles or level of power depends on the organization and the country. Let's refer to the company itself. The GVP is included in Ethiopian Airlines senior level leadership team as captured here [18] but debating whether VP is a notable position or not is not the main crux and we have to refer to the Wikipedia guidelines on notability here Wikipedia:Notability (people) to consider whether the subject meets the notability criteria. First, the sources are independent and sources like the African Development Bank and the African Business Club of Harvard Business School [19] both mentioned the subject's receipt of US Presidential Lifetime Award which recognizes his contributions. Ethiopian Airline is Africa's largest airline and the subject was its face in North America for two years. Even though the VP is a notable position, the subject is not listed here because he is a VP. He is listed here because he is covered by several independent sources (especially in the african aviation industry where he belongs), the role he played in the airline industry during the COVID pandemic as MD in Canada (that earned him the NCBN Business person of the year award in 2021) and the significant award he bagged in the U.S IN 2023 as contained in the sources. When you look at the profiles of many CEOs on wikipedia including the current CEO of ethiopian airlines, that of this subject has more weight. You can be an ordinary classroom teacher and do big things. In the african aviation industry, the subject has earned it. Astra Los Angeles (talk) 09:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Astra Los Angeles (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Comment: For perspective, he is (or was) one in a list of 179 similar people [20], so this is very much not a notable position. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That is a yet to be updated website page. This is the current page for Ethiopian Airline corporate executive Team [21] - the apex leadership and management team of the company. The subject is listed there. Astra Los Angeles (talk) 09:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One from a group of 16 isn't really helping your argument; we aren't LinkedIn, where every person gets an article. Being listed on a corporate website does not in any way show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 05:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. Non-notable businessperson, with shallow, limited coverage. Archimedes157 (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded Keep argument. A source assessment would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP: MILL. Don't gaslight or sealion us that a VP of an airline is automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 04:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not because the subject is a VP but a VP that is notable in the African airline industry and for the significant award he received. 105.112.17.178 (talk) 07:50, 13 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sources are thin and commercial, but for one (primary source) article by Brock, and I agree with nom about the "Bru Times News". This doesn't constitute reliable sourcing, so notability is not established. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there’s not a single reliable source about this living person. I don’t count what he’s written, the patents that mention him, or any of the other sources that are on this page. He’s literally unverified. Bearian (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His services to NASA is commendable. Resources can be improved. I think he is a noteworthy personality. Sofilily (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]