Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander C. Feldman


 * 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. joe deckertalk 15:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Alexander C. Feldman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is clearly a candidate for deletion according to the [|"Biographies of Living Persons"] article. The reasons are:

1. The person is relatively unknown;

2. The person has published material about himself (the page edit history leads to a staff-member of the person). This material is unduly self-serving which is a violation of the Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:C802:C0:A6C4:94FF:FE40:CCAC (talk) 07:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Text above is copied from article talk page.  I'll stop short of offering a !vote of my own, but my impression from a first pass is that while the article could use some de-PR-ification, better sources are out there and the subject likely meets WP:GNG.  -- Finngall   talk  16:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Article may need improvement, but generally undersecretaries/CEOs can be notable.-- danntm T C 00:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Can be notable" != "are always automatically notable". Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Appears to have held a senior enough post for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as this may not be as convincing as earlier. Draft at best if needed, Keep perhaps as this seems convincing enough but I'll also invite for analysis, as I know DGG always has beneficial insight.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Either he is notable for his business career or his government career. The business career is "by working for Star TV" in an unspecified capacity;  Vice President for Affiliate Sales at CNBC Asia; founder of B2BCast.com ,a n apparently nonnotable company;. The government career peaks as     DGG''' ( talk ) 20:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * While the article makes claims that would probably make him eligible for a Wikipedia article if they were better sourced than this (i.e. well enough to pass WP:GNG), it's not claiming or properly sourcing anything that gets him an automatic inclusion freebie just because he exists. So I'm willing to reconsider this if the article sees significant cleanup and sourcing improvement before close, but he's not entitled to keep this just because a better written and better sourced article might be possible. Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can do better. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: somewhat confused about the reasoning above because as per WP:NEXIST we're not supposed to be making judgements based on the quality of the sources found on the page but whether sources which meet the WP:GNG exist. Hence I can't see how one can possibly !vote that "he's not entitled to keep this just because a better written and better sourced article might be possible" - because that is exactly what we are supposed to be assessing to determine whether the page should exist or be deleted.  As it happens, I don't believe that significant secondary sources about this guy do exist, and on that basis it should be delete - but this has nothing to do with the poverty of sources currently on the page. JMWt (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you may be misunderstanding my point. I wasn't able to find the volume and quality of sources needed to meet WP:GNG via the resources available to me, but it is possible and has happened that a person who couldn't be sourced over GNG in one media database could be sourced over GNG in a different one. So the difference between a keep and a delete is not "maybe better sources might exist somewhere", but "here is the hard and fast proof that better sources do exist". Bearcat (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Delete Neutral. I am not seeing WP:POLOUTCOMES as relevant here. As far as I can tell, his government roles consisted of being an assistant to a more notable role. And his being a CEO of a notable advocacy organization doesn't make him notable either according to WP:NOTINHERITED. The only claim of notability I see is that "he held the rank of Assistant Secretary of State with responsibility for global public diplomacy" &mdash; a copyvio phrase pulled verbatim from the cited source, which is self-published &mdash; but our article and all of its sub-pages list other people as holding the position during the time he supposedly held it, so I would discount this claim in the article, and any other claim cited to primary sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Based on the sources found by GabeIglesia below, I'm withdrawing my delete vote. I am still not convinced that the rank Coordinator for International Information Programs automatically confers notability on anyone who has that position. At the risk of making a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, this strikes me as considering all entries in the list of admirals of the German Navy as notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article merely on account of their rank. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The article meets WP:GNG. The subject's roles as a former Assistant Secretary of State (a high-level position appointed by the President of the United States), and as the current president of a notable organization gives the subject sufficient notability. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See my comment immediately above. Where is the independent source that verifies he was a "former Assistant Secretary of State"? Our article on the subject, and all the associated sub-pages, don't mention him. The only thing we have is a self-published source. I hardly think that qualifies. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Indeed you are right that the "AllGov" ref didn't mention it. His archived State Department profile, however, does verify that he held that position. Here's one more from his current US-ASEAN profile and another on the Washington Post. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I've since updated some of the refs regarding his Assistant Secretary role. On another note, to clarify for all, Feldman's official title was Coordinator for International Information Programs, which has the rank equivalent to an Assistant Secretary of State. I mention this, because some sources may not directly mention him being an Assistant Secretary (e.g. the Washington Post source). But it is still correct. Hope the clarified sources also help to address the notability/WP:GNG question. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 14:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree with DGG that this person does not appear notable either by the virtue of positions, coverage or achievements. Just someone doing their job. I'll also note that this biography seems to be part of the series created by a SPA on Coordinator for International Information Programs/US-ASEAN Business Council; I suspect a COI in the works. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing about his career or the sourcing of the article passes notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.