Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blair Effron

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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Effron

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

No indication of notability, largely unreferenced, with a single third-party source that covers Effron himself in some detail. Nothing significant beyond a New York real estate deal found via Google. Was prodded, prod removed by an IP editor without improvement. Huon (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what the above editor is implying. A simple Google News search shows 10+ articles related to Effron having been written in the last few weeks alone. Moreover, in May of this year, Effron hosted Obama at his Manhattan home for a private fundraiser. This event received heavy media coverage (which directly mentioned Effron, seeing as it was his home). Since then, a number of news articles have pointed out that Effron (and many other financiers), despite being large democratic party donors, often are involved in deals that the Obama administration has disparaged; chief among these are so-called "tax inversion" deals.

In sum, I cannot understand what the above editor means when claiming a lack of "notoriety." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.139.123 (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he appears to be a big "player" in both commercial real estate and New York politics, although I'd not heard of him before this AfD. He seems to be the type of socialite who "feigns discretion" -- he doesn't have a Facebook page of his own -- but does nothing but socialize with the Tisches and raised wads of cash for Obama. There are lots of news sources online with more than passing mentions of this "character". He's gotten attention in the WSJ, Business Week, and other reliable sources -- some of it unwanted, for example in connection with inversion deals. He's been mentioned in AP stories for at least ten years. So, yes, he clearly passes as notable. FWIW, I voted twice for Obama. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - mostly per Bearian. I'm not sure its the strongest claim to notability ever but I agree that his status (and related coverage) as a "player" in a couple of different contexts is enough to make a notable whole, if only just. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I'm Australian and couldn't have voted for Obama if I wanted to. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:20, 24 September 2014 (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.