Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Dumas (economist)

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Dumas (economist)[edit]

[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)

WP:BLP of an economist and journalist, not reliably sourced as passing our notability standards for either role. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they're technically verifiable as existing -- the notability test is the amount of media coverage the person has or hasn't received about their work to externally establish its significance. But this article is referenced entirely to primary sources, such as directory entries and his profiles on the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations and his own company's self-published press releases about itself, which are not support for notability at all. Since his career stretches back to the 1960s, any prospect of salvaging this with better references would almost certainly require digging into archived British media coverage I don't personally have access to, so I'm perfectly willing to withdraw this if somebody can actually find the correct kind of referencing to establish his notability -- but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have added more sources that I believe to not be primary ones. Please could you let me know if they improve the validity of the page? If not, please could you explain further how I can ensure that this page is not deleted as this is an individual who is very well known in their field and the media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannahtsl (talk • contribs) 09:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have checked many of the references and find them to be unhelpful in an assertion and verification of the gentleman's notability. Hannahtsl asks for guidance. I have given that on the article's talk page. The gentleman has had a decent career. So did I. He is well known in his field. So was I. He has written a book. So have I. But no-one would consider me worthy of an article here because there is nothing showing notability. Nor does he have that. Prove me wrong, ping me, and I will change my mind. Not about me, but about him. I know I'm not notable. Fiddle Faddle 22:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Hannahtsl appears likely to be employed by T S Lombard (0.95 probability based upon the suffix tsl). Charles Dumas is an employee of that organisation. I have noted the COI with a warning on their user page against WP:UPE to which we are awaiting a response, and a COI banner on the article. I hope very much that this turns into a formal declaration of paid editing or a credible denial Fiddle Faddle 22:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A declaration has been made in discussions on the editor's talk page and directly in their user page, and this now meets our needs Fiddle Faddle 17:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost all sources cited or found are about the firm our subject's working in or about other issues, and not about him per se: We have a Financial Times article about TS & LSR merging; a New York Times citation that's supposed to impress us but is actually about recession returning to Europe, a text in which Dumas is name-dropped exactly once; an article in Spanish that appeared in Aporrea and is about "Perspectivas de la economía mundial en 2011", which we do not really need to translate in English and in which Dumas is name-dropped also once; and so on. Then, lots of listings (e.g. here or here) of our subject's own writings. (In this conference schedule, which, as a simple list of participants, would not be a significant proof of notability in any case, he is not even mentioned.) This is an effort made by an editor whose contributions so far have been about our subject or TSL, and in a blatantly promotional manner too, which never helps, whether there's a fee involved or not. -The Gnome (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2020 (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.