Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Scotto

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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Scotto[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)

Reason Cambr5 (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC) This whole article is very strange, basically this person is known for one thing, what is very dubious, and rest looks like some sort of a CV written by an IP address. Not sure if this doesnt count as spam. Cambr5 (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject died in 2018, and the only obit is on an industry website. Orb4peace (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A bit of searching finds that Scotto's report regarding Enron (and subsequent termination) attracted a significant amount of coverage, both immediately in the national and international press [1][2][3] and in later analyses [4][5]. These sources are just a sample: many more are available in ProQuest, Google Books, Newspapers.com, etc. I think that's more than enough to satisfy WP:BASIC, particularly since "[i]f the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". I also disagree with the suggestion that "this person is known for one thing" (i.e. WP:BIO1E): although many of the sources are focused on the Enron scandal, there's plenty of unrelated coverage discussing his activity as a major Wall Street financial analyst [6][7]. Any remaining issues (e.g. with a résumé-like tone) can be resolved through editing; deletion is not cleanup. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do definitely agree with Extraordinary Writ. Brayan ocaner (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Also found a Wall Street Journal article and have added. Updated page with some new sources and removed unsourced and promotional content.MartinWilder (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Enron scandal. Seems to me that a biographical article is not necessary or worthwhile if a person is only notable for one act of whistle-blowing, as important as it may be. - Headphase (talk) 05:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Extraordinary Writ. JBchrch talk 12:09, 2 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.