Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toby Crabel

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 12:54Z

Toby Crabel[edit]

Being a millionaire, is this enough to make this bio's notable? Fails WP:BIO and Wikipedia:Notability; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy McKay (trader), Al Weiss. Seems this is One in a large series of article spam: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Spam/2006_Archive_Dec#Major_article_spam.3F.--Hu12 13:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Edison 16:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, by far not only an anonymour millionaire. The article is sourced.--Ioannes Pragensis 23:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Hu12 19:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep It is a WP:N subject matter. The nomination is preposterous as this person meets WP:BIO, something which is easily verifiable.

Also read: Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Problem_articles_where_deletion_may_not_be_needed

900 ghits strongly suggests notability[1] shows up about 900 unique hits.

This article is also part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Business and Economics

In every decade we have a top 10 of Money Management, this person was ranked in the 90's as a top 10.

Crabel notable in his profession Money Management. He has ranked high in the Money management league tables.

Read the lead paragraph its all in there and referenced. There is proven verifiability from reliable sources

He manages 2.8 billion dollars.

There is a rating of the Top Hedge Funds every year and this guy is on the list ranked "number 101 out of 196 funds"

All referenced. Read the Lead paragraph!!

The editor who nominated this article is over-reacting. This user (the creator of the articles has been around for 9 months now and seems to have a number of perfectly decent, constructive, NPOV edits. And even a few anti-spam edits! Ok, so maybe he likes that particular book a bit too much, and likes to write about Money Managers only. Just engage in dialog with him. This is a case where presumption of good-faith seems natural.

Trade2tradewell 00:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is beginning to look like deletion by profession. Not all stock traders are equal.DGG 02:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC).
Keep. The AfD's in this string have common characteristics: The subject is notable within a specialized business-related field; the article has stylistic problems and includes puffery but has enough substance to establish notability. AfD should not be used as Cleanup. JamesMLane t c 17:05, 25 December 2006 (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.