Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toby Crabel (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. I can see why nobody rushed to close this one – the arguments here are a bit of a mess. Most of the Keep arguments rely on interpreting WP:NTENNIS as an alternative to WP:GNG, when the overall guidance at WP:NSPORT says that isn't how it works. On the other hand, the Delete arguments seem to demand that the subject be notable either as a businessperson or as a tennis player, but our notability requirements do not impose any such binary requirement. It would be sufficient for him to be covered for any combination of reasons. There's clearly some coverage, including at least one news profile that seems clearly WP:SIGCOV. Unfortunately the rest of the coverage seems arguable or unproven. WP:NTENNIS does at least ask that we give the benefit of the doubt to subjects who meet its criteria, so I am closing this as no consensus with a default of not deleting the article. RL0919 (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Crabel

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Toby Crabel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article subject requests deletion. See VRT Ticket 2021120910009403. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO as lacking significant coverage. Geoff | Who, me? 22:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you meet WP:NTENNIS then you qualify, so it would mean to ignore GNG requirements. We can maybe just improve the page to reduce anything about his financial background that cannot be verified. MartinWilder (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per JoelleJay (talk) 03:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is all the coverage from independent sources in the article:

Coverage

1. 'You know what, I have to go out, but I can do this from my car, said Toby Crabel, 43, preparing to respond to a reporter's inquiry on the subject. I'll call you back in three minutes.

Mr. Crabel credits technology with allowing him to run a hedge fund out of his house in the middle of some cornfields northwest of Milwaukee. He has programmed his network of computers so that when he is reading to his daughter Kira, 8, he can be prompted by a digitized female voice that it is time to buy Treasury bonds. Not significant. 3. On the counter-trend side, perhaps the most well-known is Toby Crabel. He manages more than $1.6bn and has written the book Day Trading with Short-term Price Patterns, which can be found on eBay for upwards of $1,000 a copy. Despite the volatility in the markets, Crabel only had two down months in 2004: March was down 0.79 per cent and June was down 0.39 per cent. Such volatility lets one sleep at night. He finished the year with a 3.36 per cent return, less than the yield on a 10-year treasury. His average return per year has been 9.48 per cent and his worst drawdown is only 4.23 per cent. While some don't mind the roller-coaster ride of John Henry, other institutional investors are willing to pay a 3 per cent management fee and 20 per cent incentive fee to have the sleepy volatility of a Crabel. No idea how to evaluate this significance-wise, but it's certainly not encyclopedic info. 4. Can't access. 5. Crabel Capital Management listed in table; trivial mention at best. 8. SIGCOV of his futures trading methods, but not of him.

Still not seeing GNG met, unless someone can find coverage of his tennis career. JoelleJay (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable as a tennis player. Reasonable to presume career would have received coverage if he played as high up as French Open, even if not available online. Jevansen (talk) 06:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Tricky. My rationale is—as written—this is a Wikipedia entry about a businessman (a trader, a fund manager, even an author), therefore the criteria we must apply is WP:Basic, and the topic fails. If the entry focused on his tennis career (or said more than five words about it), totally different story.
Simply put, adding "...and a tennis player" (or "...and a former tennis player") to the entry's lead would seem to me disingenuous, therefore I don't agree that this entry should be measured by WP:NTENNIS. Pegnawl (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a general businessman article, not a tennis article. And, regardless of that, significant coverage hasn't been shown. Unless Iffy, Juggyevil, Devokewater, or Jevansen can present such significant coverage to meet the WP:GNG, which all articles must meet when their notability is challenged (particularly when it comes to sports SNGs), then their arguments should be disregarded by the closer as not relevant to the discussion. SilverserenC 23:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. As a Tennis player he qualifies. If you meet WP:NTENNIS then you qualify, so it would mean to ignore GNG requirements. Maybe the page needs to be trimmed down if the sources for his financial background are unreliable. MartinWilder (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is literally the exact opposite of what WP:NSPORTS says. You absolutely do not ignore GNG requirements. The sports SNGs only include a presumption of meeting the GNG, but if that is challenged, then significant coverage needs to be presented to back up that claim of presumption. Do you have any evidence whatsoever of there being significant coverage of this person? SilverserenC 01:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well one of us misunderstanding the guidelines. We both can't be right. WP:NTENNIS says "figures are presumed to be notable if they... etc." One of the terms is if they played in French Open then they qualify. The subject meets this criteria. WP:NTENNIS does not state they must also meet GNG. What would be the purpose of even having WP:NTENNIS if GNG supersedes it? that would mean no matter if you meet anything on WP:NTENNIS then you don't qualify. I am afraid you are the one that is misunderstanding the criteria. In addition, I have now improved the article, added more info about his Tennis career in the intro and its own section. MartinWilder (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe you should read both of the AfDs I linked, which were closed the way they were because of the argument I am making here and many others were similarly making in those discussions? I am not misunderstanding the criteria, because my understanding of the criteria is how they are applied and have been applied. SilverserenC 02:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am withdrawing my vote, as I just noticed the subject has requested the deletion of the page in the talk page. If he was a major public figure, I would not have withdrawn, but in this case, I wish to not vote at all. I will let others to decide. MartinWilder (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NTENNIS is governed by NSPORT, it is not a separate guideline. That NSPORT is subordinate to GNG has been reaffirmed numerous times in the closes of AfDs spanning cricket (ex: here and here), football, gridiron, MMA, etc.
The newspaper clipping you found does look substantial (albeit local and with a lot of quotes). I do not have newspapers.com access so cannot verify that he has had significant coverage in multiple articles. JoelleJay (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep — Easily meets WP:NTENNIS. Celestina007 (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Celestina007 and @MartinWilder, NSPORT requires GNG to be met regardless of whether an athlete meets a specific sport's guideline. This is explicitly detailed in several different sections:
    First sentence: This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia.
    FAQ 1:

    Q1: How is this guideline related to the general notability guideline?
    A1: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline.

    FAQ 2:

    Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean they do not have to meet the general notability guideline?
    A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline.

    FAQ 5:

    Q5: The second sentence in the guideline says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Does this mean that the general notability guideline doesn't have to be met?
    A5: No; as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. This sentence is just emphasizing that the article must always cite reliable sources to support a claim of meeting Wikipedia's notability standards, whether it is the criteria set by the sports-specific notability guidelines, or the general notability guideline.

    Applicable policies and guidelines section: In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline. JoelleJay (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have updated the article with more info about his Tennis career. In fact, he is still quiet active in tennis and ranked No. 1 seeded player in over 65 age range. He also meets GNG, see this article. I have added a few other citations regarding his Tennis career. MartinWilder (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Toby Crabel is the author of a best selling book: "Day Trading with Short Term Price Patterns" plus there has been numerous articles about him in publications such as: The Wall Street Journal, Futures + Options World, Futures Magazine + numerous other financial publications, these articles were around 20+ years ago hence not easy to find today, however if you review Elite Trader can see how notable this person was in financial trading. Devokewater (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you link to those SIGCOV refs? JoelleJay (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Toby_Crabel_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1064523010"