Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Paulson

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. Majorly (hot!) 00:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Paulson

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}}.

I declined a speedy delete on this as asserting notability (as president of Franklin Financial Corp., a subprime lender), but then came up with only 3 Ghits when trying to find sources, and none for "Franklin Financial Corp" (as opposed to "First Franklin Financial Corp", a completely different company). Mr. Paulson's Yellow Pages lawyer listing gives no indication of notability as a lawyer. NawlinWiki 02:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to clarify...I am a mortgage broker, have been for 10 or so years. First Franklin Corp. (an unrelated company) was a subprime lender but they quit making loans a few months ago. My understanding is the Franklin Financial with Mr. Paulson, purchased their mortgages at a steep discount and resold them to Fanny Mae, making a very hefty profit. All this transpired quietly a few weeks ago. I would think he ranks up there with the top 400-500 after sealing this deal. Jeff Pardell 12:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)*— Jeff Pardell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
- Response That's nice. But you're not a reliable source. Got any? We have seen none yet. NawlinWiki 14:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, Mr. Paulson would be notable if he were indeed on the Forbes list (which is actually called the Forbes 400 -- but I couldn't find him on it. Go to the Wikipedia page and check the external link -- and note that to make the Forbes 400 in 2006, you had to have a net worth of $1 billion. Can anyone find a reliable source to show that Mr. Paulson is on this list? I haven't been able to, and the article author hasn't supplied one. I also note that the article author edited my nomination comment, and blanked the AFD notice on the article page. NawlinWiki 02:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, this editing was in error, this was my first time making a nomination.friends4lunch 04:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Online list appears to be for 2006. The article claims he is on the 2007 list. John Vandenberg 03:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article claims he is on the Forbes 500. Not only is the 500 for businesses, but it hasn't been updated since 2002. Ourai ^тʃ_с 03:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak keep~~weak delete, Top 500 richest people sounds like is should be acceptable. Im interested to hear of people what are/arnt deemed notable on a similar basis. John Vandenberg 02:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that this is true. Corvus cornix 03:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep the fact that he is one the 500 richest Americans makes him notable to me Black Harry 02:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that this is true. Corvus cornix 03:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep the fact that his website as an atty http://yp.bellsouth.com/sites/neilpaulson/pg3.html is consistent with the article lends credibility. I don't think the Forbes list for 2007 is out yet, I think it comes out this month. Alot of you guys hate attorneys and rich guys!!!JeffDavidso 03:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Jeffdavidso (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Note also that that link only points to a page which proves that he exists, not that he's notable. Corvus cornix 03:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the assertion is proven. There are only three Google hits for '"Neil Paulson" "Franklin Financial"', and they are all exactly the same opinion post. Corvus cornix 03:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 3 G-hits for the combination of his name and the company [1]; my search of the Forbes 400 comes up nil. Unless the assertions are proven, or there are other criteria brought up, delete. Ourai ^тʃ_с 03:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep the fact that he has done all this stuff by age 51 makes him notable to me. BTW the Forbes 500 includes the Forbes 400 list plus the next 100 people that are poorer. Brian Germane 03:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, other search terms are pulling up relevant pages, but I'm not seeing much of note. John Vandenberg 04:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Forbes 500, which includes only businesses, hasn't been updated since 2002. There is no possible way an individual could be on the Forbes 500 list for 2007. Ourai ^тʃ_с

Delete The Forbes 500 is for businesses. The Forbes 400 (for people) is published in September, and it's not quite September 2007 yet. Plus the military background is crap; the brigadier general he supposedly worked under retired in '77. [2] 'Tis a hoax. Phony Saint 04:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also JeffDavidso and Brian Germane and probably socks of friends4lunch. Phony Saint 04:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentDid you notice, PHony Saint, that the article was about army service and you found an air force general??? Did you notice the difference?Brian Germane 04:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response No, I didn't; thanks for clarifying. He's still not notable pending the September 2007 issue. Phony Saint 04:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no WP:RS indicating notability per WP:BIO. Until reliable sources can be provided that any of the claims are true, this is a a suspected WP:HOAX article and should be delt with accordingly. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced. --RaiderAspect 06:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as per Corvus cornix and Kinu. Stammer 10:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless this can be sourced and his status on the Forbes list proven, he is non-notable. Brian Germane et al., instead of arguing his notability back and forth, just source it and prove it. So many people can't figure that out. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 12:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neither the article or my own cursory search show notability per WP:BIO or WP:N. If he is, indeed, on an upcoming Forbes list, then the article can be recreated at that time.Chunky Rice 17:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FYI I was reading something unrelated today, and saw the 2007 Forbes 500 List. I can confirm that he is NOT on the list. Pretty easy too, because the Forbes 500 is for BUSINESSES, and the Forbes 400 is for PEOPLE, so with that being said, he is not on the Forbes 500 for 2007. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 18:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although did important things for his community, he didn't do anything important enough to be recognized on Wikipedia, there's tons of attorneys who were never recognized on Wikipedia. Harry Jolly

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.