Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell Abrams

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. The discussion failed to coalesce around a particular position, and while the sense of the discussion is that the delete camp had a bit more force, it is stretching things too much to hold the article in its final form fits into WP:NOT, or claim to lack of notability. I will say the sources are more notable for their volume than their quality, but that is not in itself a reason for deletion. I also agree that the article's editing history shows signs consistent with undisclosed paid editing; such articles tend to be watched closely. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Abrams[edit]

Russell Abrams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOT policy still applies, this is still questionable for actual independent notability and substance because there's still only inherited claims of significance and notability from the events themselves, and even my own searches found nothing but a mere announcement in a 2014 Bloomberg and then a republished story about the event in 2010's Forbes; none of this amounts to substance and there's enough to suggest this is an advertising campaign, and in fact, the sign the only major news were for the one event shows there's no significant attention apart it. See also my Draft comments when it was at AfC. We never negotiate with our highest policies WP:NOT because they allow removal of anything, regardless of "But it has sourcing". My comments even show below what the article contains, what's been removed and what exists in other sourcing, something no one else has cared to state yet. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is an article specifically about this person in Bloomberg here and another one in the Independent here. I found these just looking at the sources given at the article. I should add that this article is still very new, and it's doing pretty well so far. How about giving it a little more time before going to AFD? Bradv 00:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update: the article has been significantly expanded since it was nominated, including several more sources. If you have a chance, please take another look. Bradv 01:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • See below for my explanation of WP:GNG and, also, please cite which Wikipedia pillar policy allows notability in this article.
They are only about his taxi event though and thus WP:1E applies. SwisterTwister talk 01:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Bloomberg article contains a lot more information about this guy than just the taxi information, if you read it all the way to the bottom. There's full background information about his time at Titan, and his role as a hedge fund manager. Bradv 01:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Profiles, yes, which can basically amount to "interviews", still not acceptable in our policies. SwisterTwister talk 04:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Pro-delete individuals citing policies that do not make sense/are not applicable/faulty logic and argument. Grasping at air. A reading of their comments, in my opinion, does not seem convincing. Thus no policy is violated and GNG is clearly met. This man is noteable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.64.117.95 (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, clearly, as the person who accepted it from AfC. I evaluated the two Bloomberg sources and the Independent source, and determined that all three provided significant coverage and thus that Abrams was notable. I don't know what else there is to it. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (article author), I wrote the article and am a programmer trying to become an editor, not a paid person to do this. I will also point out that these articles about him are from 3 major indpendent sources(profiles of him) and other articles and awards over a 15 year time period, not some one off event. There is no conference of notability from association, what is noteable is the person. The guidelines are met from the Wikipedia: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]" Lastly, you pointing out 2010 Forbes article and 2014 articles are on different subjects regarding the man, which somewhat bolsters case of notability as it adds an additional source that says he is worthy of coverage. I agree and think we should let the community dig in deeper as they are finding more and more articles: I vote taking it out of AFD? Faberdasher (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - WP:SNOW Article contains reliable sources, good work improving this article. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which policy states "reliable sources" are enough for an article? SwisterTwister talk 04:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is essentially a who's who entry, showing no particular accomplishment at anything. Disciple of a notable financier, which does not make their student notable. Lives in a famous apartment house, ditto Co-head of a firm--no indication of the relative role. 2 of the funds did well--no information about the number of their funds that did not. Member of a minor donor's group at the NYPL--not even a major contributor. Now runs (or a least finances) a taxi firm in Argentina, described as a gamble. Anyone trying to write and article or profile out of this is building fluff on air. It seems the write for bloomberg managed to do this, which is good evidence that their article is PR and not a RS--Bloomberg contains both. (In my experience those devoted to individual people are almost certainly PR, those devoted to individual relatively minor companies likely to be PR, and only those devoted to famous companies of industries or general business or economics likely to be actual independent reporting.
That WP people are willing to support this article represents the blind faith that a naive interpretation of the GNG, ignoring such inconvenient adjective as "independent" has some connection to the real world. Fortunately , the GNG is a guideline, but NOT WHOSWHO is fundamental policy.
A good working definition of who's who is something the person might as well have written themselves.(tho in this case it seems to be a spa working for a family of capitalists). That editor expressed a wish to let the pros handle it, seemingly convinced that WP is a top down organization run by professional writers, which is what they are apparently used to. We don't have pros, of course, and all editors are equal--except spas. DGG ( talk ) 15:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the "fundamental policy".  Please explain how it relates to what you are saying.
===Wikipedia is not a newspaper===
Shortcut

As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not:

3. Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.)

Unscintillating (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what an Italian business news outlet based in Milan, originally founded in 1865, Il Sole 24 Ore, says, using Italian-English online translation from PROMT of [1]:

Besides, the history about Abrams also without taxi is already worthy of a film. Assumed in Goldman, it asserts of having studied strategies on the derivatives with Fischer Black, the famous American economist that it has invented the equation of Black&Scholes to calculate the price of the options. After a passage to Merrill Lynch, in 2001 there melts his hedge fund, Titan Capital Group. In the 201st one it will be cited in judgement at a client's, convinced of being being deceived on the strategies hedge of Titan and on the risk level, but the court will give reason to Abrams. Ah, among other things in 2009 Russel had already been cited in judgement for sexual nuisances at two employees', forced to print photo of the wife in topless. Last year the closing of the hedge and the beginning of the new adventure. This time in taxi.

So while DGG says by way of WP:NOTWHOSWHO that this is a one event about a taxi company, an Italian newspaper says that the rest of the biography outside of the taxi story is "worthy of a film".  Unscintillating (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended Discussion[edit]

Extended comments moved to the end of the talk page in order to provide clarity. They can be viewed in their original order in the history. Bradv 19:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The articles contain PROFILES of Abrams himself, there are 3 of them from major sources. The articles contain indepth info about the man and his career not just the taxi thing and information about his notable headline scandals even. 1E does not apply really to the articles themselves, but in addition to the articles themselves there are profiles of Mr. Abrams over extended time frame - all the way back to 2003 - from established industry publications, and other newspapers such as Forbes and Business Insider. Regardless if the headlines flag the taxi item as his latest venture his previous ventures and himself have received coverage from independent sources over a period of almost 15 years. Faberdasher (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Swister. Profiles are not basically "interviews" as you claim. We do not consider profiles to be interviews at Wikipedia. A profile is an independent source or sources examining background and objectively reporting on it. There are many things in these articles I am sure Abrams would object to having been reported. An interview is defined as most of content coming from the source him/herself and is thus not reliable. These articles are thus profiles from independent sources and fits WP:BASIC. If we establish that it fits WP:BASIC then #2 of WP:ANYBIO (which is enough for inclusion) fits with regards to his taxi empire. WP:1E is not intended to be applied in the manner you are applying it - a person's significant contribution is not a "on off event." Rather WP:1E is meant for mostly news events and other events, usually one off events. It does not apply to WP:ANYBIO since it is that single contribution for which the person is known for. Lastly, the WP:1E would additionally not apply since the articles cited in the wiki here are over a sustained time frame on Abrams himself and MULTIPLE events in his career, e.g. the man himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:810D:E100:11B:3DC6:58F9:4EA0 (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:GNG is met so he is presumed notable, Looking deeper WP:BASIC is met, and WP:ANYBIO #2 is met. Your claim about WP:1E is not applicable - in your definition inventing rabbies vaccine would be WP:1E whereas WP:1E is mostly applied to people in news events not individuals being profiled because they themselves are notable WP:NOTWHOWHO says "unless news coverage goes beyond a single event our coverage should be limited to a single event" - as Abrams has had BOTH coverage of a single event - the taxi thing - PLUS many other events dating back almost 15 years - his business success, Forbes article, NYPOST, Business Insider coverage of him and his funds, WP:WHOWHO is thus not violated - there are multiple notable events because he himself is notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:810D:E100:11B:3DC6:58F9:4EA0 (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Its necessary, not sufficient. It meets WP:GNG which means it passes the sniff test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faberdasher (talk • contribs) 01:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There's no speedy keep because the sources themselves only show actual significance for the event itself therefore WP:BLP1E applies and even improvements in the history couldn't improve this and it's sourcing hence enough to take here to AfD hence why we need to evaluate this closely. There's no policies here that immediately accept any article simply for being "sourced and informative". Also, simply stating "Let's take it out to AfD to improve and hope others also join" is not based by policy but the fact it was reworked and still became advertising makes it inapplicable since no one else was able to actually improve it. Also, the fact any persistent article about a promotional businessman is quickly resubmitted and the account focuses with absolutely nothing else makes WP:SPA apply, and thus why we are here at this AfD. As for "People are presumed to be notable", it's a suggestive guideline, not policy, and the guidelines also say "There must be significant coverage not from interviews and the few news listed here include interviews, hence not even fully satisfying WP:GNG. In all this, WP:NOT still applies. Take example While at Titan, Abrams made strategic investments in Argentina culminating in his founding of Russellcar. Mr. Abrams pledged to invest over $100 million to expand his fleet of sustainable vehicles providing modern efficient transportation, while providing full-time employment with full benefits for his union workforce....Abrams leveraged his expertise under Fischer Black to start one of the first dedicated volatility arbitrage funds, achieving notoriety in the category over its lifetime....Titan earned numerous awards as one of the best performing hedge funds in the world with significant gains in all of its funds during the Financial Crisis.... The last part is a vague "Why, where, which and when?" because it simply claims it was "one of" which instantly is not significant and, two, "numerous awards" is as equally vague since it never cites anything, they could've even been paid awards. Take also Abrams himself was recognized as a leader in volatility trading in both developed and emerging markets which is itself sourced by 3 interviews all in questionable publications as it is, that alone is questionable enough. Even then, the awards listed are simply that: Business awards, and there's absolutely no policy to suggest accepting them, especially not as PR-vague as "best value fund manager award", and there's never been an article in which we've accepted a business award like it. :Also, from above, it's stated that Lastly, you pointing out 2010 Forbes article and 2014 articles are on different subjects regarding the man, which somewhat bolsters case of notability as it adds an additional source that says he is worthy of coverage - Which is actually not the case because 1 PR 2010 and 2014 article that merely state him, is not coverage at all, since it was so far apart in time and so trivial. If he was "worthy of attention", wher are the other numerous news? Therefore, no one can honestly consider this "major reliable significance" since it couldn't even be sourced by significant publications with an honest history. Given all of these concerns, there's no "Speedy Keep". SwisterTwister talk 01:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are over 10 superlative awards of this man on Google, 2 of which are cited here in the article. They are not paid awards. So why are you saying they are not cited?Faberdasher (talk)
Your facts are not correct and I do not know if this is some sort of rouse or lie: Hedge Funds World, Best Hedge Fund Manager Awards, 3.10.09. That is not a paid publication and it is not an interview, it is simply an award. Same with all the other awards there such as this where he is quoted, not interviewed and it is said that he was voted by his peers to receive it: http://www.hedgeweek.com/2012/07/12/169677/titan-capital-group-%E2%80%93-best-relative-value-fund-manager or this one: www.shariahfunds.com%2Fpubs%2Fawards%2Fhfwmec2009.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHU4Q4Y_LQvf15eZNWDditw3PWt6A&bvm=bv.142059868,d.eWE
These are not PR articles, are you suggested he paid to have bad PR in 2010? This is clearly independently written. Your claims are not credible. It is relevant he is in two major pubs(he's in more, but you brought up 2) because this guideline states from WP:GNG: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]
  • Comment - The above comment is factually incorrect, so please do not assume Swister is saying accurate depiction of the article, or myself. Again, per the above keeps and speed keeps mentioned, the policies are met and meets the definition of notable. Again, this is my first article and I am not promoting anything despite Swister's accusations. There is "signficant coverage" from interviews and not interviews, both types, although Swister only mentions interviews. All of this merits a Speedy Keep and allow others to work on the article as there are further sources out there with CNBC etc and even the Forbes article Swister found on his own but chose not add to the wiki(we had to figure out what he was talking about), but people are hesitant to work on a possibly deleted article. Thank you. Lets move past. Faberdasher (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually a guideline, not a policy as I stated above. Also, "There is "signficant coverage" from interviews" is exactly what makes it unacceptable and the GNG itself states: Interviews are not independent of the subject and are not established for notability. I also wasn't going to add the Forbes because it was not only one trivial article but simply about his business activities. Our policies have established that even CNBC is common host for PR, as equal as a Today Show interview would be, because they're simply news stories. I myself could get a Today News story or two, but that wouldn't make my own notable article. SwisterTwister talk 01:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Last comment of mine - Wikipedia 5 main pillars is that it has no firm rules only guideliens: Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars. So not sure what you are saying Lastly, There is not significant coverage from interviews - there is one interview out of 10-15 sources. And additionally - we meet all critera for notability and do not violate any of the DO NOTs. So I dont understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faberdasher (talk • contribs) 02:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To specify, while the pillars state "There are no rules, only guidelines", WP:What Wikipedia is not explicitly states it is in fact a non-negotiable policy, and it's in fact the highest policy we have. Something that we always use for any AfD or any examined article and that itself states that Wikipedia is not a business listing or otherwise business webhost nor is it a collection of business information for clients, services or anything else. This current article has the signs of it and, therefore, no claims of "He's worthy of coverage and attention" will convince against this policy, especially when there's no actual major coverage. SwisterTwister talk 02:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but 4 of your editors disagree. I have told you many times it is not a business listing or collection of business information for clients. The accusations are simply baseless and happy to talk over the phone about it - but while you can assume such things I am telling you right now - you're wrong. This is also why I had to warn people your statements are inaccurate in my post above. I am happy to talk about notability and would rather have the professional editors get involved in that - but please stop saying it is PR. It's not. I will let the pros handle it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Faberdasher (talk • contribs) 02:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTWHOWHO says "unless news coverage goes beyond a single event our coverage should be limited to a single event" - as Abrams has had BOTH coverage of a single event - the taxi thing - PLUS many other events dating back almost 15 years - his business success, Forbes article, NYPOST, Business Insider coverage of him and his funds, WP:WHOWHO is thus not violated - there are multiple notable events if you just Google him or look at the citations here.
Comment I think your diminishing his accomplishments. He was disciple of a famous economist which should be included in the article, then founded one of the first volatility funds on that expertise which was $1 billlion dollar fund(which is automaticlly notable) and he himself was notable since he received awards against every other hedge fund manager(11,000), and then used his money to create the largest taxi company in Buenos Aires and the largest eco-friendly one at that(all vehicles are renewable energy according to the articles) And has been profiled over a period of 10 years and the profiles are about the history of his work and person on both subjects - finance and taxis and personal matters by Bloomberg and the Independent and more. This is an independently written wiki on an individual, not paid or PR, and the guy has been a pioneer in both fields of US finance overall and now the metropolis of Buenos Aires - which is why many newspapers in Argentina and internationally call him the Argentinian Taxi King. Also, theres no doubt people would want to know all this information. However if the award listing is not important we can do without it but the awards are notable because it was against all other US hedge funds, 11,000. The profile of the guy can not be underestimated.( Faberdasher (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"One of the first" is not a genuine claim of significance as it could be like a "He founded one of the first companies for computers" (hardly a significance, since there were numerous). Also, once again, our notability policies explicitly said: Inherited notability won't support an article simply because of his job involvements, so in this case, "The profile cannot be underestimated" goes against our policies because it's an act of attempting to change them. Also, As before, please show us, for the sake of everyone, where he has been in major newspapers because my own searches found nothing but those 2 trivial articles from 2010 and 2014, which if that's all Google cared to show, it shows he's not consistently "profiled" as you say (Google also showed nothing from the past 10 years). "Disciple of an economist" is also attempting to inherit his involvements with someone to accept this man's own article; I could've worked with 10 of the living billionaires but I wouldn't get an article simply because I worked with them (no one ever would), hence it's not applicable. Please list all of the available newspapers here and add these newspapers to the article and we'll all consider them. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not every fact in the article is meant to establish Wikipedia's definition of notability - some things are just information such as being recognized as "one of the first" by independent and reliable sources or that he worked with someone famous. This is also relevant to the notable person's background. We are determining if he himself it notable and your harping on background information. The information you cite is relevant to the article since independent sources are citing him as "one of the first." and not meant to establish notability. For an understanding of why it's notable I am reposting the above: WP:GNG is met so he is presumed notable, Looking deeper WP:BASIC is met, and WP:ANYBIO #2 is met. Your claim about WP:1E is not applicable - in your definition inventing rabbies vaccine would be WP:1E whereas WP:1E is mostly applied to people in news events not individuals being profiled because they themselves are notable WP:NOTWHOWHO says "unless news coverage goes beyond a single event our coverage should be limited to a single event" - as Abrams has had BOTH coverage of a single event - the taxi thing - PLUS many other events dating back almost 15 years - his business success, Forbes article, NYPOST, Business Insider coverage of him and his funds, WP:WHOWHO is thus not violated - there are multiple notable events.

Comment I do believe there needs to be guidelines on what makes a financier notable as it has became a major thing in our age. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) does not include that category leading to confusion it seems like. Who wants to start? Faberdasher (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My question is still unanswered about seeing other news that exist, because the Forbes was once again a trivial minor article from 2010 and that's all. WP:NOT#Advertising and WP:NIT#Listing is still violated because of this and the fact there's still no signs of other coverage, despite the assertions it exists. By finally showing the news, we'll all see them because my searches are again not finding anything. As of today, no one still hasn't improved the article. Also, adding SURVEY at the top is unsuitable given WP:AFDISNOTAVOTE, something our core pages mention. SwisterTwister talk 18:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)*Comment and analysis of sources :[reply]

Therefore none of this has been significant news, since they were either the same trade business awards, the repeated sources (the Bloomberg and Hedgeweek taxi events), so the assertions: "It's about his major career, business achievements and life" is not supported since none of this mirrored it; by searching once again for sources, I was unable to find anything. The applicable pages for this is WP:COATRACK and WP:PUFFERY. SwisterTwister talk 19:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PUFERY and WP:COATRACK is wrong because my statement that "the articles are about his major career, business achievement and life" is supported and your statement that the articles are "just about the taxi event" are not supported: Here are direct paragraphs from the articles - it is not just about the taxi "event" as you call it:
The fund was sued in 2010 by an investor claiming it was misled about Titan’s strategy and risk level. An appeals court dismissed the case in 2012. Titan was also sued by two former employees in 2009 for sexual harassment after Abrams asked them to print topless photos of his wife, according to court documents. A New York court dismissed the complaints in 2011. " Is that about the taxi?

At Goldman Sachs in the early 1990s, Abrams says he researched derivatives strategies alongside the late Fischer Black, one of the co-authors of the Black-Scholes equation used to calculate options prices. By the end of the 1990s, he was co-head of U.S. equity-derivative trading and convertible arbitrage at Merrill Lynch.

Is all of that about the taxi event? It is not. And these articles about him are mirrored on Bloomberg, Forbes, Independent, Business Insider etc? Some are smaller than others and 4 of them, Bloomberg, Forbes(as you cited and found, not me), Independent, and an Argentinian newspaper have profiles of the man in 2014 - and coverage of him goes back to 2003, with some years being more high profile than others as is normal in ones life. This is not WP:1E as you keep saying since there are other notable achievements - taxi, finance, scandals, being covered over time and although taxi is the significant contribution (renewable energy largest, title called Argentinian Taxi King, etc) that satisfied the criteria of WP:ANYBIO #2, his coverage has been beyond that in non trivial manners and on substantive issues. WP:ANYBIO #2 is fit, as is WP:BASIC, and WP:GNG. WP:PUFERY is wrong and sort of insulting to him because there are too many sources mentioning him over 15 years, since 2003 infact, and many of those sources going into depth with his background and life. It is not WP:PUFERY which is for "fleeeting celebrity" He has has significant press since 2003.

And yes there are some articles like the awards or the fund size that are there to prove facts, not to prove notability - e.g. founding partner of $1 billion hedge fund that beat 11,000 other funds for awards through peer review and non-peer review awards. So stop citing them as reason for him not to be notable just cause those alone are not according to wikipedia definition. They are significant facts relevant for a notable person.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 19:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 19:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure he can confirm he means the nomination and then my analysis above, as this is what he told me offwiki and he also acknowledged the same concerns, including as has DGG above. SwisterTwister talk 01:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Confirmed with above statement Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 20:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, thanks for clarifying! Enterprisey (talk!) 23:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and analysis- The Keep comments still haven't substantied themselces with countering our best policy WP:NOT and instead only say "Sourcing is enough". However, examining the current article now as of today, I see only 4 other sources have been added, and they are still only published and republished business announcements. If that's honestly the best we have, then all chances of actual improvements have been exhausted. The information itself is still the same aside from a few cosmetic changes. SwisterTwister talk 02:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but WP:NOT has been countered: WP:NOTWHOWHO says "unless news coverage goes beyond a single event our coverage should be limited to a single event" - as Abrams has had BOTH coverage of a single event - the taxi thing - PLUS many other events dating back almost 15 years - his business success, Forbes article, NYPOST, Business Insider coverage of him and his funds, WP:WHOWHO is thus not violated. Also you refer to "business announcements" but nothing here is a business announcement or is promotional in nature, all the articles 3-5 that profile this noteable man
have various degrees of favoritism but all are reliable, independent, and fit the criteria. If I am missing something here please let me know but what you are saying is directly contradicted by the facts ::and many others comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faberdasher (talk • contribs) 04:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS; Wikipedia is not a news site to retell the exploits of unremarkable subjects. It's not a resume hosting service either. Nor is it a tabloid to feature minor controversies. None of this amounts to encyclopedia notability just yet, so WP:TOOSOON applies as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 08:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  I was thrown off for a while by the two negative legal news stories prior to the taxi story, but the Italian newspaper has put the negative news in perspective, which is also the default for Wikipedia...that negative news adds to notability.  The one event, toosoon, 1E, and NOTWHOSWHO arguments are all broadly misapplied.  Also note that interviews contribute in varying degrees to notability.  This is an ordinary GNG keep.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The policy WP:Wikipedia is not a business listing still applies since it's clear that's only what this has existed for, along with the fact the account then started a similar business listing for this man's brother, hence WP:SPA. As it is, the Keep comments earlier never advanced their keep beliefs especially once I analyzed all of the sources above. "Also note that interviews contribute in varying degrees to notability" is not what even the general notability standards say, since it says "Coverage must be significant, independent and substantial and must not be trivial". As stated, earlier, if all we have as available sourcing is actual published and republished announcements, there's nothing else. SwisterTwister talk 23:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note The Keep Comments advanced their keep beliefs after SwisterTwisted posted his source analysis, but the page history shows SwisterTwister removed them because they were improperly placed in the column. SwisterTwister did not replace them after he deleted them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.64.117.95 (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG:, please look at this diff of 4400 characters of analysis removed.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note  SwisterTwister has WP:REDACTED the above comment at 2017-01-15T05:50:45 without following talk page norms to avoid changing the meaning of subsequent comments, see [2].  Here is the post to which I replied:

The policy WP:Wikipedia Is Not A Business Listing still applies since it's clear that's only what this has existed for, along with the fact the account then started a similar business listing for this man's brother, hence WP:SPA. As it is, the Keep comments earlier never advanced their keep beliefs especially once I analyzed all of the sources above. "Also note that interviews contribute in varying degrees to notability" is not what even the general notability standards say, since it says "Coverage must be significant, independent and substantial and must not be trivial". SwisterTwister talk 23:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Unscintillating (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:Wikipedia Is Not A Business Listing is a red link, not a "clear" policy.  Your proof that I don't know what I'm talking about regarding interviews fails to show any relationship between the "interviews" and the text you've cited.  Nor does WP:N use the word "substantial".  WP:GNG states, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention".  As I said, interviews contribute in varying degrees to notability, and one of the best cases is when the publication prepared a bio for the interview.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although you've now created a Wikilink for this conversation, [3], that points to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a directory, you haven't explained the relationship of the Wikilink to the conversation.  As stated at WP:VAGUEWAVE, "While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand."  In this case, you've also yet to explain which part is relevant, and it is a long section.  I found two sentences that use both the words "business" and "list".
  • "Likewise an article on a business should not contain a list of all the company's patent filings."
  • "7. Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances..."  That section goes on to say, "Information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose."
Do you agree that there is (1) no list of patent filings in the article, and (2) no listing of business alliances without supporting sourced prose?
Unscintillating (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  User:DGG has not responded, nor does he have a duty to do so, but the problem remains unremedied. 

    Two basic rules when editing other editors talk-page comments are (1) We are here to build an encyclopedia.  (2) Don't change the meaning.

    Note also the agreement editors make when they submit to talk pages, "By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL."

    Here is the disputed edit, from [4].

It is about his entire life, a profile on him. The clickbait headline is not the whole article as your statement suggests - e.g. the taxi "event". As another user said above it goes deep into his background, failures and succeses. In depth even back to the 1990s, even his scandals. How can you say this is not independent or trivial?
This is an Argentinian Newspaper calling him the Argentinian Taxi King, if you speak Spanish. So it's not just PR fodder.
This is totally wrong. Hedgeweek -states the awards for managers were based on a shortlist of top performers during the year produced by Preqin[object data intelligence firm on performance], which was put to vote by Hedgeweek readers, who include both investors and managers as well as other industry professionals at firms This is NOT PR and not bought. Stop saying that. Its not different than any other election such as the Academy Awards etc.
These two are meant to prove facts stated in the article not for notability
  • 7 is simply a mere citation and claim he's mentioned in the same PR publication
This is not a "mere citation." It's a full on article in a newspaper. Stop calling it a PR publication. Would journalist appreciate that??
  • 8 is the same source as earlier
  • 9 is simply a business "numbers" listing and is not significant, especially news-wise
This is to prove about the fund having a $1billion size which is automatically notable according to editors. It's not about news. Not evertything in the article is going to be notable,some things are there just to prove facts.
  • 10 is another claim asseration with URL, from the same trade publication
Please reference the material.
  • 11 is simply a "Hedge Fund 100" listing, it's not major news
Again, if the awards are a problem we dont have to have them, but there are a lot. Hedge Fund 100 out of 11,000 IS MAJOR achievement in Wall Street Journal for Titan, his firm. It is not encyclopedia worthy but it is worthy as background information on this notable subject.
  • 12 is another company-business listing
Again this is not notability for the subject the subject has notability independent of this, this is just helpful information about his performance which is clearly significant! And because he is notable its relevant information for the reader.
  • 13 is the same
Again this is not notability for the subject the subject has notability independent of this, this is just helpful information about his performance which is clearly significant! And because he is notable its relevant information for the reader.
  • 14 is the same
Again this is not notability for the subject the subject has notability independent of this, this is just helpful information about his performance which is clearly significant! And because he is notable its relevant information for the reader.
  • 15 is another hedge fund "award" listing, it's not news
Again this is not notability for the subject the subject has notability independent of this, this is just helpful information about his performance which is clearly significant! And because he is notable its relevant information for the reader.
  • 16 is the same
Again this is not notability for the subject the subject has notability independent of this, this is just helpful information about his performance which is clearly significant! And because he is notable its relevant information for the reader.
  • 17 is the same
Again this is not notability for the subject the subject has notability independent of this, this is just helpful information about his performance which is clearly significant! And because he is notable its relevant information for the reader.
  • 18 is the same
Again this is not notability for the subject the subject has notability independent of this, this is just helpful information about his performance which is clearly significant! And because he is notable its relevant information for the reader.
  • 19 never actually mentions him by name
THis is to prove the 11,000 figure of hedge funds which is why awards are significant. This is not what he is notable for at all.
  • 20 is the same as 11-18, an award listing
A bit different - this gives HIM an award instead of his fund.
  • 21 is the same source as earlier
A bit different - this gives HIM the award instead of his fund.
  • 22 is the taxi event story again
No - have you read the whole article? The article is about him and his life. It is not the taxi story.
  • 23 is the Bloomberg link for the taxi event story again
  • 24 is the taxi event story again
This is not about taxi event story - its about Argentina and not even about him. It is not meant to convey notability but rather show that he created the largest taxi cab company and the largest eco friendly taxi cab company in all of Buenos Aires. Thus the Argentinina Taxi King name which he is known as in Buenos Aires.
  • 25 is a local "fiction literature" award
This is the largest library in the United States next to the Library of Congress - e.g. the largest public Library in the country. It is not local at all. That's like saying the Library of Congress is "local" cause its in D.C. The award appears to be given to lots of people all over the country.
Unscintillating (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After reading the above and also looking at sources already on the page, I ran my own search on a news archive, which clearly established notability by showing articles in major media covering his activities over about 2 decades (coverage may go back somewhat longer - but I did not attempt to discover if some old stories about a college student was this Russell Abrams). He is covered both as an investor, and in at least one instance as the subject of prurient tabloid interest in activities exhibiting poor judgment on Russel's part, but I really cannot find an argument for deletion. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First, what policy states this is acceptable? The fact there's been classic exhibited signs of paid advertising violates our policies (worse when it's unconfessed) and the shown defense of it, also violates our policies. Not only is this sufficient basis for deletion, but the fact no one else including the Keep above, has offered any better substance, after (1) the article was still never improved but then the added sourcing was mirroring the concerns. In all fairness, I will state that the first Keep voters expressed their doubts in an offwiki message. SwisterTwister talk 00:06, 23 January 2017 (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/Russell_Abrams&oldid=1089521149"