Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelo Manioudakis


 * 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. Valley2 city ‽ 19:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Angelo Manioudakis

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is about a non-notable fund manager. At the time of nomination, there are 7 references for this article. Only two of them mention the subject in more than passing. The first is in the Chicago Sun-Times, where it describes how the state of Illinois lost money investing in a fund overseen by the subject. The second is a short blurb in the Wall Street Journal about his resignation.

The mention in the two media sources above does not satisfy the "significant coverage" of the general notability guidelines. In addition, the subject is known only for one event, and thus fails WP:BLP1E.

Someone claiming to be the the subject has requested the article be deleted at BLP/N. Atmoz (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, fails notability and also BLP1E.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This fund manager may not be notable yet but he is become known. This was a massive loss and one of the largest losses in a supposedly conservative bond fund. Oppenheimer is about to be sued by several states and there are several class actions gathering steam. I found this entry quite fascinating and would like to see it added to, in particular with regard to what bets were made that resulted in the massive losses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.207.2 (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * delete for now. Looking over this, there's no need to get into the complexities of verifying whether the individual is the subject or deciding how much weight that gives to deletion. Nor is there a need to invoke the complexities of BLP1E. We just don't have WP:BIO here. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep Article is sourced and appears factually accurate. I don't believe this is a WP:BLP1E as there are glowing stories of the subject and the fund dating from 2004, as well as the sudden downfall of the fund and sunject through 2008. Given the high value of the fund, the prominence of the managing company (Oppenheimer Funds), and the quality of the sources (WSJ, Wash. Post, Bloomberg, etc...), I don't believe this is a candidate for deletion. Vulture19 (talk) 03:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * question Do you have examples of articles that are about Manioudakis and not about the fund? JoshuaZ (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The fund doesn't exist in a vacuum, it exists because there is a person managing it. Without such a person planning the strategy and making decisions, it ceases to be. The article is documenting the manager of a high profile fund, with well sourced, independent, third party coverage. So, in answer to the question, no, I could not find a biographical source about the subject independent of a discussion of the fund, other than hard news stories that the subject had abruptly resigned (note, not the fund had abruptly ceased to be, though).Vulture19 (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be separate from the context of the fund. What we need is it to focus on Manioudakis. Do we have sources which do that? JoshuaZ (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * merge into Oppenheimer or some article about the funds crisis. From current sourcing, individual is not notable on his own. -- The Red Pen of Doom  04:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete We need multiple non-trivial sources that primarily deal with Manioudakis, which means doing more than mentioning a job he used to have. --Rob (talk) 06:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Rob and others above. Merge anything useful to the topic of primary WP:RS coverage (the fund). Rd232 talk 12:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We cannot do delete and merge. We would need to do a redirect. Delete and merge make the GFDL a sad panda. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you sort of can. You can move this to [Target Article/subpage] delete the resultant redirect, then merge from the subpage to target.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You normally can't "delete and merge" by copying copying the text without rewording. But you can move any relevant facts with sources to the target article, with no copyright problem, as long as you reword, which you should anyhow.  Also, since only one or two editors have made any meaningful contributions to this article (depending on which version you use), you actually can delete and merge as long as you credit the users (in the edit summary, most likely).   We have the same freedom to re-use GFDL text from deleted articles that we do with offline external sources.  GFDL requires preservation of credit, not text.  --Rob (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Rewording was what I had in mind. Rd232 talk 15:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable bio. If and when subject becomes notable in his own right, new article could be created; but that time is not now. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:44, 31 March 2009 (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.