Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilya Fushman

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. Sandstein 10:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ilya Fushman[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)

I do not currently see any notability, either specifically as a businessperson, or according to WP:GNG--Ymblanter (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC) Ymblanter (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:PROF on the academic stuff and the sources have the flavor of WP:ROUTINE coverage of business staff changes. They don't seem to speak to the notability of the subject, but the companies that hired him. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The appropriate standard is WP:GNG, not WP:PROF. The coverage of his career moves looks superficially impressive, but on inspection the sources (while reliable, independent, and about the subject) do not provide enough depth of coverage of the subject for an article. Typically there is one sentence saying something vacuous like "Fushman is the kind of person we're looking for" surrounded by a couple paragraphs of filler about the places he's moving from and to. That's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from stub creator. Concerning David Eppstein's analysis, which I agree with mostly, I would argue that what he describes as "a couple paragraphs of filler about the places he's moving from and to" are plenty to prove notability. The content may be boring and have little relevance to someone not actively following Silicon Valley IPOs, but business press is typically boring anyways, and not a reason to overlook content. More specifically, sensationalism and GNG have no relation, as far as I can make sense of the guideline. MidwestSalamander (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:03, 3 April 2019 (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.