Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Edelstein (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per clear consensus. Michig (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Edelstein

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Clear failure of WP:CORP and thus is promotion. Six references: 1, 3, 4. These three are not independent sources, being, for example, interview sources of the CEO himself. Ref 2 I can't read, but is only being used to cite "Warburg Pincus made Edelstein CEO of NYFIX, a newly invested portfolio company." References 5 & 6 do not contain comment on the subject and so do not support Wikipedia-notability. Could the article have been redirect? "He is currently the CEO of BioCatch, a start-up technology company." BioCatch is not notable, so no. At the AfD, but the nominator and one !voter provided solid textbook reasons for deletion.

In the previous AfD there was a unanimous consensus to delete. A subsequent anonymous request for REFUND should not have been entertained, both the editor and rationale for undeletion needs to be in record. Do they have better sources??? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC) SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He is towards the end of his career now and there are still no material indpendent secondary significant RS in which Edelstein is the subject. There are refernces in "trade magazines", but these are primary sources where his companies would have paid for a BIO written by him - E.g. Global Custodian. For a Wall St. figure to get nothing more than name checks in the main US RS financial papers (e.g. WSJ), is a sign of non-notability. Almost none of the companies that he was associated with are notable, and he was not even a full partner of Warburg-Pincus or of Advent (a lesser PE firm than WP). He is trying to use WP as an important plank is building his notaility; however it should be the other way around. Britishfinance (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An editor had restored some unsourced and/or WP:PROMO content from primary sources about the subject (e.g. "he successfully expanded the firm’s retail bond trading business into the institutional market"); there are also many refs that do not mention the subject but are used to support claims about him; will try to remove from time to time to restore the de-PROMO'ed version we had [1] for the Deletion Review conducted after the WP:REFUND post the 1st AfD on 14 February 2019. Britishfinance (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All sources corporate blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. (Article author). The article was reduced to nothing by overly aggressive and erroneous "trimming." I have restored RS citations and associated content that was removed from the article at the time of the first AfD. Sources and text can be discussed on the article talk page. Please refrain from speculation or disparagement of the the subject of a BLP, even one that is AfD. SPECIFICO talk 01:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @SmokeyJoe: The Notability test for an individual is not WP:CORP. It is WP:BASIC. SPECIFICO talk 01:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, grossly inadequate sourcing. Also, don't write BLPs in a way indistinguishable from paid-for vanity pages if you don't want them to be accused of paying you to write paid-for vanity pages on Wikipedia. —Cryptic 02:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it does not seem this subject has made an encyclopedic level of impact on their field enough to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG notability guidelines. It seems to violate WP:NOTPROMO/WP:NOTRESUME and has the hallmarks of having a WP:COI origin. From the first time I encountered this page, it struck me as more of an online "resume" (especially if you read early versions soon after creation) with a gratuitous Quotes section, Biography section that incorporates intimate levels of detail and informal/emotional language, and sources which are mix of corporate PR, paid profiles, or sourced to obscure, niche, or offline publications which few un-connected article writers would have access to. -- Netoholic @ 04:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with everyone else above. Does not pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 07:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A fair bit of odd sourcing that read like fake footnotes ("Legends" what is this, a book, a TV show, a game of charades?). Some blatant press handouts and promotialism.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Led to a WP:RSN discussion concerning SPS sources, and apparent beliefs that corporate press releases regarding the notability of a corporate head are valid for claims praising the person beyond bare biographical details. Collect (talk) 12:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill business person. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.