Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T.J. Maloney (2nd nomination)

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. There are now no arguments for keep and so the deletion is uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

T.J. Maloney

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

I have reviewed the current article, which is sourced mostly to a directory bio listing, broken links and primary sources. This Forbes piece is the only good source and it does not comply with the spirit of BLPCRIME, since Maloney was never found guilty. Additionally, some light research reveals that the plaintiff's case was repeatedly thrown out of court, because they had too many conflicts of interest and it was never really a noteworthy case.

This article was sent to AFD a few years ago and was just barely kept. Our standards have increased since then and I think there was some poor communication in that discussion. For example, it's misleading to say this means he was covered in Bloomberg.

I do not have a COI or any affiliation whatsoever. User:CorporateM (Talk) 02:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The reference to WP:BLPCRIME in the nomination is inappropriate. The article cited is about the subject being sued by a private party, not about him being criminally prosecuted. There is nothing in this article that says that the subject was ever charged by the government with committing a crime. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as I will pursue my original Delete since the article is still noticeably questionable. Keep perhaps although I would've pursued Delete also because although DGG and I have both noticed CEOs of $1 billion and higher assets companies are acceptable and the article contains claims of named chairs and named libraries, this may be enough to keep for now...even if the article may still be questionable somehow. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not notable. It can be assumed that being founder or president of a manufacturing or retail company wroth $1 Billion is notable, but because of the nature of their business, financiers are not necessarily so at this level--I'd be more included to say $10 Billion. Holding an endowed professorship is notable; donating one is not, because all it takes is on the order of $5 million. (I gave that estimate without checking the article, but I see the article gives the same value!) So all that his gifts prove is that he is wealthy enough to donate $10 or $15 million to his college. That level of wealth is not notability. I did argue otherwise at AfD1 3 years ago, but as the nominator says, our standards have risen. And I think that even by our 2013 standards, I was probably wrong at the time. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 29 March 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.