Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Banayan

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Banayan

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

Administrative relisting for proper inclusion in AFD, no comment on article. Nakon 05:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest

The very notion that this article should exist is extremely dubious. If the revision history is viewed, it is clear to see that the page was created by the subject of this article for self promotion. Much that has been provided is content that is either only possibly known by the subject himself, or is so inflated that only someone with extreme self interest in the subject would write. The subject is not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia page. Barely any of the 30 under 30 Forbes Honorees have Wikipedia pages, as being chosen for 30 under 30 itself does not make you notable. With the multiple categories, the subject was not even featured. The claim that he was the youngest VC is made by an article that did not show proof as to him actually being the youngest, and is unless otherwise proven, an unsubstantiated claim. GeraldoAbbson (talk) 03:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There are references, however they are mostly not about the subject. However, I could see if there were a few more RS for the subject, that may pop up over time, it would be worth keeping. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability established by [1] and [2]. WP:TNT not not required to fix COI issues. ~Kvng (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best and Draft if needed, as this has existed since August 2012 and not only that, but the only solid best here is the Fortune listing and information thus still questionable and I believe it's better to wait for a better article considering simply the article's overall appearance and suggestance. Notifying DGG since he may be interested with this. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. youngest venture capitalist -- which seems a completely unreliable claim -- is just tabloid fodder, not anythingsignificant. A7would apply here. DGG ( talk ) 07:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of non-trivial coverage, existing references provide only passing mentions at best. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePromotional piece. Coverage is trivial at best. RockyMtChai (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2016 (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.