Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Finance
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Finance. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Finance|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Finance. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

watch |
Finance
[edit]- Seafund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Majorly citations are WP:NEWSORGINDIA, WP:ROUTINE, and WP:CHURNALISM. Fails WP:NCORP. LKBT (talk) 05:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, India, and Karnataka. LKBT (talk) 05:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. This is not a notable company. Aneirinn (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Delete - Plenty of mentions, routine coverage, and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Nothing that meets Wp:CORPDEPTH. Should have been speedied and would have been had creator not objected to it. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- David Bosset (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Meets WP:GNG, I guess. But just a small-time criminal so seems to fail WP:CRIMINAL. mikeblas (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Crime, Finance, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:13, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- Delete - seems to be a case of WP:BLP1E. Kvinnen (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree. Although I do not see how this possibly meets WP:GNG. Kvinnen (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- Merge with Tax protester 861 argument: I don't really see notability outside of the tax argument, not really much discussing this person. Oaktree b (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- Merge as Oaktree b suggested. Sadly, he was just one of many people refusing to pay taxes for stupid reasons. Bearian (talk) 07:28, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- ComplyAdvantage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Almost entirely promotional with serious WP:COI concerns and lacking WP:RS to independently establish notability. Amigao (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Software, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:06, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- weak delete - the article does seem to use sources that are not commonly deemed reliable, however, the tone, I suppose could be improved.
- Kvinnen (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. This company is not notable. Aneirinn (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Keep - Pinging @Liance: who was the AfC reviewer. There are content issues, but putting those aside for the moment the page meets WP:NCORP. You have to weed through the mentions and routine announcements, but then there are staff written articles that meet WP:CORPDEPTH in Business Insider and ComputerWeekly. Here are a few book sources out of the hundred or so found in Google Books as well. As WP:DINC, the COI can be tagged and someone can cleanup when they have an opportunity. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- PayChangu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unclear notability. The majority of the current sources ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7]) appear to be paid news. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and Technology. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:06, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- This is a trending fintech company in Malawi that everyone is talking about the sources are from reliable sources like Malawi24.com, nyasatimes and international sources Kalotiking (talk) 08:06, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- Delete The available coverage consists mostly of brief award mentions and promotional articles (Malawi Nyasa Times, Malawi24, Showbiz Uganda, Fintech Magazine Africa). These are lightly edited press releases or sponsored content rather than significant independent coverage. No reliable, in-depth secondary sources have been found to establish notability under WP:GNG. Z3r0h3r000 (talk) 08:56, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- Keep I am a Malawian writer, and I can confirm that this is currently one of the most trending if not the number one fintech companies in Malawi. I believe it deserves a Wikipedia article. @Tumbuka Arch is a fellow Malawian editor who might be able to help verify this.
- Kalotiking (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Kalotiking. We need sources, not words, that show that this company is notable. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- Keep – The article discusses the company’s partnership with a notable bank, which can be verified on the official website of Centenary Bank Malawi:
- [1]
- It also mentions awards the company has won. This is supported by another article from National Bank of Malawi (NBM), one of the country’s largest banks:
- [2] The award mentioned is among the most recognized in the country and is based on customer votes, which demonstrates the company’s notability[3]. Furthermore, the sources used in the article are not just Malawian blogs, but include reputable news outlets and official bank websites Kalotiking (talk) 12:24, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- Malawi is very small country it's just getting started with fintech for someone interested in tech like myself my goal is to make sure i take part in writing articles about Malawian fintech and contribute here Kalotiking (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Kalotiking. We need sources, not words, that show that this company is notable. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Inherently promotional in-tone and all sources seem to be paid news articles as previously mentioned. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- Keep: promotional tone can be fixed. The company is notable given that it is the only of its kind in the country. Here, the company is quoted "a pioneering fintech company" by Malawi24 and by Nyasa Times here where is being referred to as "Fintech giant." In 2025 here, company won Firm of the Year at ICTAM Awards surpassing Airtel's service and other major firms. These are not so-called awards as awards are usually associated with effort and not "paid" promo. I could farther found this, little of this, that provides WP:GNG. While I wouldn't count "partnerships" as company's notability, mentions and describing it as a major leading Fintech in the entire country is enough to give a glimpse that company is notable. This can be used to sustain an article per WP:NEXIST.--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 10:25, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- Greedflation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article should be merged and redirected to Price gouging (UPDATE: Better merge/redirect target is 2021–2023_inflation_surge#Price_gouging_and_windfall_profits). In the subsequent 11 months, the npov and wp:OR in the article appears to be getting worse, and it narrowly was closed as no consensus before. The term already has a section on price gouging 2021–2023_inflation_surge#Price_gouging_and_windfall_profits but it is a WP:POVFORK to keep this article as a sole article with far excessive detail for the term itself. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Politics, and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- Here's the link to your previous AFD in which the closer stated... "I don't see anyone (except the nominator) arguing for an outright deletion of the article". Cheers. DN (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- Did I do the nomination wrong? I meant to make it as a Merge and redirect to
Price gouging2021–2023_inflation_surge#Price_gouging_and_windfall_profits. While I do participate in lots of AfDs, I don't create them all that frequently. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:02, 3 July 2025 (UTC)- Because I agree, this nomination should not be for "outright deletion", but rather "Merge and redirect" only to the suggested target article. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- Did I do the nomination wrong? I meant to make it as a Merge and redirect to
- keep Once again, the concept of sellers' inflation is distinct (about the impacts on inflation) of which price gouging is one factor but not the only one in this theory. Plenty of coverage of the concept to merit an article Superb Owl (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- Keep: The topic is certainly related to price gouging, but the theory and discussion that has emerged around it is significant enough to warrant its own article. There is plenty of coverage from popular media https://www.ft.com/content/be35d554-b52f-4675-aced-be53ba07da32 Pragmatic Puffin (talk) 09:26, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- Delete or merge There's no distinct topic here. This is just a vague essay on economics and a vague epitaph on how sellers set prices. All things that are covered elsewhere under normal topic headings. Sometimes I say that there is a special case of having an article on a term as a term but I don't think this is one of them, being just a vague epitaph against how marketplaces function. North8000 (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect - The word "greedflation" is a neologism that's covered by the concept of "price gouging". Seller's inflation is one form of price gouging. Considering these facts, this article should be merged and redirected into a sub-section of 2021–2023_inflation_surge#Price_gouging_and_windfall_profits. Agnieszka653 (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect: can be sufficiently covered at the price gouging article. Serves as a WP:POVFORK on its own. Marquardtika (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- Update: per discussion below, I think 2021–2023 inflation surge makes more sense as a target redirect. Marquardtika (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- Redirect and merge Redirecting and merging to
price gouging2021–2023_inflation_surge#Price_gouging_and_windfall_profits is the best option here. I agree with the points made above, particularly that this is already covered byprice gouging2021–2023_inflation_surge#Price_gouging_and_windfall_profits and that it is a WP:POVFORK, given the content of the article. Revising my !vote after comments added by user:Avatar317. Additionally, this term seems to have only become widely used during the 2021-2023 inflation surge so I think this is the perfect page for it to reside on. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- • Merge and redirect to 2021–2023_inflation_surge#Price_gouging_and_windfall_profits.
That page for price gouging seems like a better place for this one. Price gouging covers the topic well enough.Doctorstrange617 (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2025 (UTC) --Doctorstrange617 (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- Merge or delete This really should be deleted because its a transitory perjorative term (ie, a meme) with no basis in fact or economics. Its use is editorializing by partisan hacks who lack understanding of the forces of supply and demand with regards to goods and money. However, the consensus seems to be to merge. That said, I think it should actually be merged into
Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and/or COVID-19 misinformation2021–2023 inflation surge, not price gouging (which is itself a misunderstanding of the effects of supply and demand). I would be fine with whatever merge consensus however. Also, this article also should be about the claims of the phenomenon not the claimed phenomenon because there is no academic consensus as to its very existence.Metallurgist (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Delete or merge to 2021–2023_inflation_surge#Price_gouging_and_windfall_profits - since it is a neologism created during that inflationary episode, and was first discussed in that article before this one was created. Alternatively, DRASTICALLY trim and merge to Price gouging, but I agree with Metallurgist's comments above.---Avatar317(talk) 23:57, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you @Avatar317. I agree that is the best target for this merge and I went ahead and updated my proposal in the AfD for a Merge and redirect to 2021–2023 inflation surge instead, though I agree, a DRASTIC trim and merge to price gouging would be secondarily acceptable. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
@Iljhgtn, Agnieszka653, Marquardtika, Gjb0zWxOb, Doctorstrange617, and Metallurgist: - Pinging those who voted to merge to Price gouging, just in case those people were unaware of the existence of this article as an alternate merge target (and where this article forked from): 2021–2023_inflation_surge.---Avatar317(talk) 23:57, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- That would actually be perfect. Thanks for finding, updated my vote. Metallurgist (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, this is a better target. Updated. Thank you. Agnieszka653 (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Avatar317! I agree that 2021–2023_inflation_surge#Price_gouging_and_windfall_profits would be an ideal target. My vote above has been updated too Doctorstrange617 (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- Makes sense to me. Marquardtika (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- 2019–20 Punjab, Pakistan budget (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- 2023–24 Punjab, Pakistan budget (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2025–26 Punjab, Pakistan budget (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2023–24 Sindh budget (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2023–24 Balochistan budget (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2023–24 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa budget (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2024–25 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa budget (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2019–20 Azad Jammu and Kashmir budget (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2023–24 Azad Jammu and Kashmir budget (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2023–24 Gilgit-Baltistan budget (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am nominating a group of provincial budgets that I do not believe meet the notability threshold of either NEVENT or fail the considerations of simple ROUTINE coverage. Of each of these topics, there is no lasting notability beyond the coverage that each generate when it was present and accepted. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Pakistan. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Keep. As per reliable sources and notability, the listed pages are notable as related to the Government of Pakistan and same as other related Articles on the same topic. Sessep (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2025 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE ~SG5536B 15:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)- Related but WP:NOTINHERITED. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:41, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: 2025–26 Punjab, Pakistan budget (and only that one article, not any of the others in this nomination) has since been speedy deleted by Ivanvector (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as "G5: Creation by a banned or blocked user (StayCalmOnTress) in violation of ban or block". (I offer no opinion on the remaining articles.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- See also 2024–25 Punjab, Pakistan budget, which was moved to the mainspace after this AFD nomination was created. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- (responding to ping) Both of those articles were deleted for the sole reason that they were created very recently by Sessep, who is a confirmed StayCalmOnTress sock. The others here were all created quite some time ago by good-faith editors; I don't have any opinion on those. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:22, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- See also 2024–25 Punjab, Pakistan budget, which was moved to the mainspace after this AFD nomination was created. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: I very much struggle to see the point with these articles. Every entity, public or private, has a budget. It's highly WP:ROUTINE/WP:MILL. Geschichte (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Delete all. WP:ROUTINE cruft that doesn't merit separate pages. Astaire (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Asia Market Wrap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article unreferenced for nearly 20 years, lacks WP:SIGCOV. Previously bundled with Market Wrap, which was then blared in 2023, and European Closing Bell. Coeusin (talk) 12:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Finance, Economics, and Asia. Coeusin (talk) 12:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
- Leaning redirect to CNBC (as there currently is no Market Wrap to redirect to). Added some facts and references, as there was no mention of any WP:BEFORE search, but it is mainly passing mentions (though my search was cursory at best; Wikipedia Library/EBSCOhost and Internet Archive). Please ping me if additional sources are found. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:28, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- Redirect to CNBC Asia#Former programmes: it is listed there, which makes it a more appropriate target for an alternative for deletion than the main CNBC article (which does not go into detail about what is shown on the Asian version; this show was only ever early-morning filler on the US version). It's not exactly as if there's much to say about a business news program that undoubtedly resembles so many others. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:19, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- For the record: the bundled nomination mentioned by the current nominator was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Market Wrap. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- Chase Ergen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Semi-advertorialized (see "public image" section in particular) WP:BLP of a businessperson, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for businesspeople. As always, people in business are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have jobs, and have to be shown to pass certain specific criteria supported by WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them in reliable sources -- but this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, such as "staff" profiles or press releases self-published by his own companies and/or directory entries, with very little GNG-worthy coverage shown at all.
Further, this has already been moved into draftspace once for lacking GNG-worthy sourcing, only to get moved back into articlespace by its own creator two days later -- so while moving it back into draftspace a second time is obviously possible, I'm not going to do that without wider discussion about whether it's warranted in this case or not. Bearcat (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Finance, Politics, and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:GNG and WP:V. This person is not notable, and we can't verify notability if all the sources are tied somehow to him. Bearian (talk) 09:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- I dropped a lot of the extra sources. I think notability is warranted but I had to drop the majority of the article to find it. Dflovett (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Obvious spam, I suspect paid - David Gerard (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- Keep or Move back to Draftspace. I see enough notability in my own googling of "Chase Ergen" and exploration of related topics, but I don't think the current article properly conveys it. I am going to go in and trim down some of this, add in more reliable sources. Dflovett (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- As I look deeper, there are lots of issues with the current references setup. Will be attempting to clean those up as well. Dflovett (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Likely COI/paid editing. Edwardx (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed on all the signs of COI/paid editing but now that I've trimmed it down and dropped a lot of the junk sources, I think it doesn't fail WP:GNG anymore. I've also neutralized the tone, or at least I consider it to be neutralized. Dflovett (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on Dflovett's changes?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
- Move back to Draftspace or Keep. From my POV, I've made significant improvements but this still might belong back in the draftspace for now.Dflovett (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- Tbh, I've looked more at some of the references I left in there and I think Move back to draftspace or Delete are the only paths forward. Keep just isn't viable as of now. Dflovett (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:16, 6 July 2025 (UTC)- Move back to Draftspace or Keep. I've flip-flopped on this a few times, but at this point I think it makes sense to do one of these two options. Full-blown "Delete" does not seem necessary at this point but I can see an argument for "Move back to Draftspace".
- Dflovett (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Gregorio Napoleone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Highly resume-like and promotional; questionable whether there is WP:SUSTAINED notability here backed up with WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 23:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Keep - resume like but passed GNG per achievements, media coverage and founding at least 1 company listed on Wikipedia. More sources should be added and some part of the bio that raises questions on promotion or verifiability must be removed. --Mozzcircuit (talk) 07:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- Keep – he is covered by multiple independent, reliable sources, which establish person's notability per WP:BIO. The article cites significant coverage in reputable publications, and his contributions to his field are covered beyond routine mentions. He and his wife are also well cited in the Guardian, NY Times and other media 5minutesToMySoul (talk) 07:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- I searched the NY Times archives. I only found the article about his wife's art. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- The same was true of the Guardian's archives.[8] A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:04, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- I searched the NY Times archives. I only found the article about his wife's art. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- Keep notability is seen during years, WP Sustained is met; I've added a Wall Street Journal reliable source and coverage and a link to verify his position at the Dean’s Council at the Tisch School of the Arts. There are some sources of high quality in german-austrian newspapers about collections, art etc mentioning Napoleone couple. Insillaciv (talk) 11:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- Keep for reasons above. Notability is not temporary, and is unrelated to the current state of the article. Ike Lek (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. The sources provided do not establish notability. Aneirinn (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: This article has 26 sources (at the time I am doing this) in the reference section which is impressive but I think if you take the time to read them you'll see that they don't reach the level we require to show notability.
- 1. profile, doesn't confer notability
- 2. profile, doesn't confer notability
- 3. same source as 2
- 4. not mentioned in source
- 5. not mentioned in source
- 6. 404 and not archived, no further comment
- 7. 404 and not archived, no further comment
- 8. broken link and not archived, no further comment
- 9. 404 and not archived, no further comment
- 10. profile, doesn't confer notability
- 11. profile, doesn't confer notability
- 12. profile, doesn't confer notability
- 13. same source as 2
- 14. partial paywall but I don't believe this source confers notability
- 15. partial paywall but doesn't seem to be talking about him so its probably not in-depth
- 16. primary document, not in-depth
- 17. business announcement, not in-depth
- 18. primary document, not in-depth
- 19. business announcement, no mention
- 20. same source as 12
- 21. list of donors
- 22. about his wife, not in-depth on him
- 23. as far as I could tell only mention was they were the source of artwork talked about
- 24. behind a log-in but I think it is similar to the above (kinda guessing)
- 25. about his wife, not in-depth on him
- 26. about his wife, not in-depth on him
Hopefully the 40+ minutes I spent writing this up can convince you that the sources here do not support a designation of Notability (although we might be close for his wife) Moritoriko (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- I went through and deleted/marked many of the sources so the current version no longer matches your list, but this version does. Lamona (talk) 03:12, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Responses to the source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 16:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC) - I am genuinely sorry to inform you that you have waisted your time. I advise reading WP:NEXIST and WP:NNC. Sourcing in an article is irrelevant to determining notability. The presence of sources in an article that demonstrate notability is solid evidence that those sources exist, but the lack of inclusion of sources that demonstrate notability is not evidence that such sources do not exist. Again, I do sympathize with the time sunk, but maybe your post can save someone else the time at least. Ike Lek (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Ike Lek, the last sentence in WP:NEXIST is "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." So why exactly do you think the person is notable? Is there another source not yet mentioned that shows this? Or are you saying that well there could be another source? What would that source say? Or are you disagreeing with @moritoriko's assessment of the sources currently in the article? Lijil (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- To clarify, I am not saying that I am positive that sources demonstrating notability exist, although I suspect they do. That isn't the point I was trying to make. My point was that the quality of sources currently used in the article is irrelevant to notability, and cannot be used as evidence that the subject is not notable.
- Separate from that, I do think the subject is likely notable. I will try to look for better resources online when I have more free time, although I do not speak Italian and sources may be in print. Still, WP:GNG only requires the existence of these sources to be presumed. Ike Lek (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- Presumed, fine. But we need to see some indication of them here. "Trust me, bro" isn't quite the level of sourcing we need in AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- Completely understandable that "trust me bro" isn't enough, however my point about article sourcing being irrelevant still stands. I will make a new comment with some potential sources. Ike Lek (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- Presumed, fine. But we need to see some indication of them here. "Trust me, bro" isn't quite the level of sourcing we need in AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Ike Lek, the last sentence in WP:NEXIST is "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." So why exactly do you think the person is notable? Is there another source not yet mentioned that shows this? Or are you saying that well there could be another source? What would that source say? Or are you disagreeing with @moritoriko's assessment of the sources currently in the article? Lijil (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: Most of the sourcing is as described in the comment above. I don't see notability ... I suppose the government job would show some notability, but there isn't much besides simple confirmation that they held the post. Gsearch brings up anything and everything, the name is rather common. I have no sourcing to look at that shows notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- Potential sources to confirm notability - I am linking below some articles I have found that I suspect may contain prominent mentions of Gregorio Napoleone. I do not have full access to most of them, so hopefully someone who does could take a better look at them. I'm sure not all of them will be up to par, but I think they could warrant a closer look, and possibly indicate if there is more to be found.
- https://www.privateequitywire.co.uk/stirling-square-backs-omni-helicopters-international-growth-strategy/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB927574333996717980- https://www.penews.com/articles/stirling-square-invests-in-glass-company-20170719
- https://www.buyoutsinsider.com/citigroup-backs-stirling-square-capital-partners-3/
- https://www.buyoutsinsider.com/dlj-phoenix-private-equity-eyes-european-opportunities/
- https://realdeals.eu.com/article/stirling-square-raises-950m-for-fourth-fund
- https://www.privateequityinternational.com/stirling-square-nets-e600m-buyout-first-close-exclusive/
- https://www.milanofinanza.it/news/stirling-square-nella-rete-1272954?refresh_cens
- https://www.wsj.com/articles/stirling-square-invests-in-bulletproof-glassmaker-isoclima-1500481947
- https://www.wsj.com/articles/stirling-square-co-founders-step-down-1526484634
- I apologize for not being able to vet all of these fully, and I know some will be useless, but I hope this can still be a worthwhile contribution to the discussion. - Ike Lek (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- Those are all about Sterling or financial firms, not about this person. "Prominent mentions" are just that, mentions. We need articles about his time as a politician or articles about him as a business person, not simply an article about something else that mentions him. Oaktree b (talk) 03:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
- WP:NBASIC only requires that the subject has "received significant coverage" in multiple secondary sources, not that the sources be primarily about the subject. I didn't include any sources that were just his name attached to art galleries or only mentioned him as being married to his wife. If you want to provide specific reviews of how any of the articles do not contribute to demonstrating potential notability, that would be helpful. Ike Lek (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not able to access most of those; all behind paywalls. Like User:Oaktree_b says none of them seem to be about him. Can anyone who can access these give us at least one that is significantly about him (with some sample text, if possible). Thanks! Lamona (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- WP:NBASIC only requires that the subject has "received significant coverage" in multiple secondary sources, not that the sources be primarily about the subject. I didn't include any sources that were just his name attached to art galleries or only mentioned him as being married to his wife. If you want to provide specific reviews of how any of the articles do not contribute to demonstrating potential notability, that would be helpful. Ike Lek (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
- Those are all about Sterling or financial firms, not about this person. "Prominent mentions" are just that, mentions. We need articles about his time as a politician or articles about him as a business person, not simply an article about something else that mentions him. Oaktree b (talk) 03:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
- Delete I suggest that those who commented before Moritoriko reconsider their Keeps GalStar (talk) (contribs) 16:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
- I would like to remind everyone that the current sourcing of the article is irrelevant to notability as per WP:NPOSSIBLE. Ike Lek (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
- Possibly notable, not Guaranteed an article. Notability isn't really the issue, we have no decent sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- I would like to remind everyone that the current sourcing of the article is irrelevant to notability as per WP:NPOSSIBLE. Ike Lek (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
- Delete Moritoriko's source analysis confirms WP:BIO not met. LibStar (talk) 04:13, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus. I'm baffled by the comment "Sourcing in an article is irrelevant to determining notability" because although we don't require sources to be the current version of an article, they aren't irrelevant at all. Sourcing is how notability is demonstrated, whether they are in or not in the article. If you are arguing that sources are irrelevant than how else are you arguing that notability is demonstrated in an AFD discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)- Hey, I think there's been a bit of misunderstanding. I am not saying sources are irrelevant. The existence of the right type and quality of sources is essential. I'm saying that the current state of sourcing in the article is irrelevant, so it does not matter if none of the cited sources demonstrate notability as long as sources that do are presumed to exist. Also sources do not need to meet the same requirements to be used within an article that they do to show a subject's notability. It is completely possible for an article to be about a notable subject and yet cite none of the sources that make the subject notable, as long as such sources verifiably exist. My point wasn't that it doesn't need sources that demonstrate notability, but that the analysis of the article's current sources is irrelevant to notability. All it does is show these articles don't show notability, but proves nothing about if others exist. Sources can only demonstrate notability or fail to demonstrate notability; they cannot demonstrate non-notability. Thus, the current sources cannot be evidence of a lack of subject notability. Ike Lek (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per Moritoriko and my own search of the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Guardian archives. I only found passing mentions from these searches. I also searched 50+ Wikipedia Library collections. Mr. Napoleone sounds like a financial big shot but not quite big enough to meet our notability requirements. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:21, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:TNT, or Draftify . The weight of the press releases and promotional material is killing the article. Moritoriko analyzed the sources better than I can. Then someone brings up rich-business-person-wire, as if it's not written on behalf of the subject. This is also a prime example of Ref-bombing that wrecks a nice little stub, and is an example of our existential crisis. If it's kept, I feel obligated out of concerns about the continuing viability of our project to stubify it myself. Bearian (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- Delete Like User:Moritoriko I went through all of the sources. I merged some, deleted ones that had little or nothing to do with the text, and marked some as failing verification. Honestly, I could have gotten rid of more. He is indeed a businessman and most of the sources are mentions of him in some business capacity. Some of the sources were about something the article claimed he had done or worked on, but the source didn't mention him. (e.g. Omni Helicoptors) The sources about his wife name-checked him but did not give him credit for purchasing the art nor creating the cookbook. Being a trustee of NYU is not in itself notable. There's quite a lot of overreach here. At the same time I easily found sources that can confirm some of the facts (e.g. helicopters again) better than the existing sources. But again, nothing to support notability. Lamona (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2025 (UTC)