Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Sebag

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 18:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Sebag[edit]

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

Delete Zero indications of notability, a run-of-the-mill successful businessman and investor. Reads like a puff-piece. Fails WP:BASIC. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many sources, at least some of which satisfy Wp:GNG (the Financial Post+Northern Miner ones, for example). Being CEO of a publicly traded company is a significant indication of notability. If the article is too promotional, re-write it, don't delete -Mparrault (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. Being a CEO of a "publically quoted company" counts for nothing unless there are independent (which means "intellectualy independent") sources providing in-depth information on the person. None exist. Also, just to point out, there are about 2,500 companies listed on the [TSX Venture Exchange] and not all their CEO's are notable nor are they automatically entitled to an article. None of the references I can find are "intellectually independent" and while they may be independent publications, they rely exclusively on information provided by either Sebag of his company - signs of an effective marketing department but not of notability. Of the two you mentioned above, the Financial Post reference is a company announcement with a quotation from Sebag - the first words in the article are "A Canadian startup says". The Northern Miner Reference is a straight-up verbatim interview. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a plethora of sources which denote notability. This Financial Post article is most certainly not a "Company Announcement" but rather a long feature article describing a new technology (BitGold) and venture. Or this one relating to the company's winning of Canadian Startup of the Year Award for best "Technology Innovation". Also, Roy Sebag's company is listed on the TSX Main Exchange where there are only several hundred companies, not the TSX Venture as was mentioned above where there are 2,500 companies. Furthermore, Sebag is also the founder of a Tel Aviv Stock Exchange company (where there are only 400 listed companies). This article provides yet another intellectually independent viewpoint relating to Sebag's activity in Israel. Not only is this an indication of notability but also of materiality within an economy's (Israel) capital market as the events reported on were matters of local news interest stirring dozens of articles. There are not many companies who's share prices rise by 3,000% in a few months. Sebag is also the first outside seed investor in a New York Stock Exchange listed company: PPDai, so that makes three publicly traded companies across three different geographies at the ripe age of 32. To say there is a lack of notability seems like a pretty easily falsifiable statement. Lastly, there are two additional full fledged feature articles, this time from the New York Times and Vogue relating to Sebag's jewelry venture with Diana Widmaier-Picasso: here and here. These are features reported on independently by multiple outlets. These and many other sources confer notability par excellence, no marketing department could cause multiple independent publications across multiple geographies to want to write features about four different ventures. With all of this being said, I do Agree with Mparrault if article is too promotional, should be re-written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:4001:D600:F581:1E:2CA8:60F8 (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The anon IP above seems to completely miss the point about "independent" third party publications. Quoting articles that repackage company announcements or rely exclusively on interviews with the person in question does not qualify as "independent" and fails to establish notability. Looking at the sources provided:
  - This Financial Post article may possibly get away with being described as a "long feature article" - but in reality, it is actually an interview with Sebag and Crumb, both founders of a company and the interview is primarily concerned with their promoting the new company. This type of article is commonly referred to as an advertorial or puff-piece. It does not count towards establishing notability as it is not regarded as intellectually independent and is closer to being a PRIMARY source.
  - this Financial Post article doesn't even mention Seabag. Notability is not inherited. The notability of a company that is associated with Seabag has exactly zero bearing on the notability of Seabag himself (for the purposes of establishing Seabag's notability).
  - True enough, this globes.co.il article uses Sebag's name in the headline but the article itself is not about Seabag, it is above a number of various companies. Arguing that not many company's share prices rise by 3,000% has not bearing on Seabag's notability. The article mentions Sebag in passing and it is not significant coverage. As stated earlier, notability is not inherited. The other points about Seabag being the first outside seed investor, etc, etc, are great - but I note there are no references to support this claim to notabilty. Similarly, if Seabag is notable because of his involvement in three different publicly traded companies - get a reference.
  - This nytimes article put forward by the anon IP above doesn't even mention Seabag.
  - This Vogue article also doesn't even mention Seabag.
- If Seabag was as notable as the Anon IP appears to think, it should be a straight-forward matter to find two references that meet the criteria for establishing his notability. As of now, we have none. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Perhaps HighKing is searching for the string "Seabag" which he has repeatedly typed throughout this debate process. Here are two screenshots evidencing that Roy Sebag (the person in question) was indeed mentioned in the NY Times and Vogue articles. The NY Times author specifically notes him as the "brainchild" behind a concept in partnership with Diana Widmaier Picasso which raised a $21 million Series A: [1] and [2]. As another user pointed out, there is no question that the first Financial Post article above is a feature, it even seems that it was a front page article given that the Financial Post sent a photographer to take the photo. The second article is reflecting that Sebag's company won a pretty serious award for technology innovation of the year. As the founder and largest shareholder, that award was obviously received by him. Finally, your issues may be caused by the mispronounciation of Sebag's name as "Seabag" but if you watch these videos of him on CNBC (further evidence of notability) his last name appears to be pronounced as "Seh-Bahhg": [3] [4] [5] [6]. I can't do anything about the fact that I am using an Anon IP. But I have been involved and enjoy contributing Wikipedia since its early days. The matter at hand is clearly an incorrect assessment of a person's notability warranting my contribution to the community.
    - Response I note you don't provide your former identity, Anon IP. I unintentionally misspelled Sebag - I note how big a deal you make of it, no offense intended. Thank you for your comments. Your comment "The second article is reflecting that Sebag's company won a pretty serious award for technology innovation of the year. As the founder and largest shareholder, that award was obviously received by him." is the opposite of our guideline WP:NOTINHERITED. Your continued assertion that mentions-in-passing of Sebag (regardless of whether the mention calls him a douchebag or a brainchild) is not "significant coverage" and fails WP:BASIC. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Keep - Notability doesn't seem to be an issue[1][2], it's updating the entry (and perhaps getting rid of some puffery or WP:Undue. BelBivDov (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hi BelBivDov, the Fortune article doesn't even mention Seabag and the Bloomberg article is literally a mention-in-passing. Neither of those articles meet the required criteria of significant coverage. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Hi there HighKing - are we reading the same articles? Fortune mentions Sebag twice, Bloomberg 6 times, and clearly not in passing since the article is about him. Looking back at Anon IP’s sources and your response, with the exception of one (FP) I was able to find Roy’s mentions with no problem; perhaps ensure that you’re not searching for the common “Seabag” misspelling by mistake. Cheers, BelBivDov (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; sources are not independent / WP:SPIP. Affiliated with one blue-linked company (BitGold) which, with $13M & similar SPIP sources does not appear to be notable itself. Content is advertorial in nature and cannot be helped since the subject is non-notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This point about "BitGold" is factually incorrect. The company raised in excess of $100 million in equity capital (The $13M was only the initial raises) and made several acquisitions notably Peter Schiff's SchiffGold and Goldmoney for $52 million [7] or [8]. In other words, in less than 2 years Sebag's digital gold patents and idea rapidly advanced from concept to executing in excess of $200 million of financial activity. As for WP:SPIP, coincidentally it was this transaction which resulted in Sebag and BitGold earning the "Corporate Finance of the Year" award in 2016 from the Private Capital Markets Association of Canada [9]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:4001:D600:F581:1E:2CA8:60F8 (talk) 09:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Factually incorrect. Seabag did not earn "Corporate Finance of the Year" award in 2016. Once again, you are conflating two separate identities. Notability is not inherited. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Here is a photograph from the PCMA Canada website photo gallery showing Roy Sebag receiving the award. The evidence of notability is indisputable. [10] -
      - Comment Perhaps Sebag received the award, doesn't mean he earned the award, the company did. He may have received it *on behalf* of the company. Certainly doesn't make him notable. Again, note, Notability isn't inherited. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's enough coverage to pass WP:GNG, between the multiple companies that have gotten coverage, his investment activities and his patents. It just needs some good cleaning up, which I started. BTW - BitGold should probably be moved to GoldMoney but I need a good source first. It appears that it was a reverse merger. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- timtempleton Any chance you could post some links to articles that you believe are "good coverage"? There's lots of "coverage", just most of it is crap or covers his companies and not him personally. Where and What is the good stuff? HighKing⁺⁺ 18:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - HighKing A few that I like include Bloomberg (not a primary source) [[11]], The New York Post [[12]], CNBC [[13]], and Reuters [[14]]. To a lesser degree (as far as notability) is Northern Miner [[15]]. Combined with the patent award, I think he just barely passes notability, although more biographical coverage would be helpful for sourcing. To your point, while a lot of the coverage is about his role in different companies, I think it's important that the coverage isn't just about his role at a single notable company. If that were the case, a merge and redirect to that company's article would be in order. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to BitGold. I've gone through the sources in the article and on this talk page and I did some limited source-searching. While Sebag has been quite prolific in arranging promotional interviews, proper sourcing and notability is not a series of "According to [source] Sebag said XYZ about his business/industry". Notability requires multiple independent sources writing significant coverage about the subject, and that is systematically lacking here. Given his success in arranging promotional interviews, there's a decent chance that some sources will write about him in the near future. If future sources are shown significantly writing about Sebag, it may be possible to restore the article for improvement. Alsee (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Bitgold name has been changed to Goldmoney. The web site redirects to Goldmoney.com. Sourcing for the name change is poor but I found this. [[16]] Mute your speakers when the annoying avatar comes on. Keep in mind, it's easy to arrange an interview when journalists in the field want to hear what you have to say. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is substantial notability to the subject in line with

WP:GNG. I've found some additional sources which I have not seen mentioned. A Barrons interview (Paywall) [17] and a Financial Times feature (Paywall) [18]. I've also found a rather long feature piece on Sebag himself (rather than his companies) which also includes extensive biographical information. [19] and translation here [https://translate.google.com/translate? sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.globes.co.il %2Fnews%2Farticle.aspx%3Fdid%3D1001216258&edit-text=&act=url]. This long piece was published in hebrew by Globes. I am confident there are others. Lastly, I find the arguments to be made by some about Sebag's interviews being promotional as unconvincing. There are 4 prime time television interviews with CNBC and several others with Bloomberg. The overwhelming majority focus on macro financial/economic matters where the news organizations seek Sebag's insights and opinions. The cause for these interviews isn't Sebag soliciting to get interviewed but rather his success and notability which make him a desirable interviewee for the press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.2.182 (talk) 10:42, 9 June 2018 (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.