Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olaf Carlson-Wee

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 no consensus. Sandstein 08:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Olaf Carlson-Wee

[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)

With reference to WP:NOTCV, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC as per the WP:RS in the article. This nomination lacks WP:BEFORE or lacks the understanding of AfD. - The9Man ^(Talk) 16:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ping: Sending ping for fetching unbiased assessments from the experts - @DGG, Timtrent, TheAafi, and Umakant Bhalerao:. Thanks in advance. -Hatchens (talk) 03:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a simple rule for financial companies. 15 years ago, i said they needed at least $1 billon assets under management for there to be any chance of decent sourcing. Times have changed. I'd now say at least $20 billion.Assets under management is an exceedingly extensive term of art. I know that's not how we are supposed to be judging, but I consider it sort of the equivalent to being in the Olympics.

Looking at our formal rules for sourcing: 40 under 40 etc. is a pure promotional gimmick, in all of its many permutations. An alumni magazine is not usually a RS. Ref 7 he seems to have dictated himself. 4 & 2 have suspicious similar titles--that usually means they were written from the same press release. No article referring to someone's "native brilliance" should be even considered as a RS. -- But this does leave open at least the possibility that 1 is a real source--has anyone read it? DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DGG For the first paragraph: This is your personal opinion and assumptions. Let's stick with the formal rules and policies.
* I agree that 40 under 40 and 30 under 30, etc, are probably promotional. But still, we do have articles on them, that make them notable. In fact, I added that after realizing the list has an article here. I see some irony there. No objection, just saying.
* Alumni magazine link is used to support the content and not to prove the notability.
* Ref 7 is an interview and is used to support the information and not to be considered as RS. Used to support the content and not to prove the notability.
* I have some concerns rejecting the 4 & 2. Isn't how the news industry works? Somebody breaks a news and everybody else follows when they find it newsworthy? There are at least 20+ articles on news websites about this with almost the same title with a simple search. Or maybe you are right, I don't know and I don't make assumptions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 09:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

of course everything I say is my personal opinion. That's the purpose of makign comments at AfD. I'm making comments, not decisions. DGG ( talk ) 09:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I dug deeper and here are some of the WP:RS that I believe to be good enough to be pass WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. There is a good number of results on Google Scholar as well. I agree that the majority of these are not yet present in the article and need to add them. - The9Man ^(Talk) 09:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 17:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not seeing the issue with the WSJ and CNBC articles (which focus entirely on him, i.e. they are WP:SIGCOV, and they are from well-known WP:RS of good repute). Was there an issue with them, or what? @DGG: 22:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Edited the article with newfound WP:RSs and removed the concerned refs by DGG. - The9Man ^(Talk) 05:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:29, 31 August 2021 (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.