Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas W. Clayton


 * 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. Favonian (talk) 10:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Douglas W. Clayton

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable individual. Article contains only brief third party mentions (typically quotes), primarily related to his firm, Leopard Capital and is highly promotional in content. The creator of the article was also involved in the creation of a series of articles related to this firm including Kingdom Breweries (afd-deleted), Nautisco Seafood (afd-deleted), CamGSM (afd-no consensus). (See also Sockpuppet investigations/Douglasclayton) |► ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 15:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Reluctant keep First, I hate these self-serving promo type biographies. But, the sources cited make me lean towards a keep (especially the NYT cite). He may not be the biggest and highest paid in his field (criminal investor class) but he appears to at least be on the stage. If this were deleted I don't think it would be missed. However, if it turns out that the original editor is involved in some commercial chicanery, I wouldn't hesitate to gut everything done under that aegis. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed to delete. scope_creep's description of the self-promotional nature of the NYT cite (which I did weight somewhat and also wasn't aware that it was a section that one pays to have written) pushes me the other way. --Quartermaster (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The NYT interview is not about Clayton, his life and career. It is about investments in Cambodia and secondarly his firm.  I think his firm is a clear keep but not every founder of a notable firm is notable himself.  This is borrowed notability at best.  I have not found a single profile of Clayton, news about his career or life.  So what makes him notable?  On top of that, the content of the article is clearly a big problem and this is just another link in an attempt to promote the firm. Why is that something we would want to permit?  By the way - he runs a firm with 15 employees - while the firm is doing notable work, I struggle to understand the reluctance to delete |►  ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 15:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - I echo Quartermaster above. I hate the page but the subject seems to be a big enough fish in the financial world to merit inclusion. Link in fn 4 is dead, by the way. Carrite (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you are basing your "big fish" assessment on. I am not sure when getting quoted is sufficient for notability.  What makes him notable?  All he did was start a firm three years ago - and before that worked at a bunch of other firms that are not notable.  This is exactly who the notability standard is supposed to keep out.  Really bizarre.  Half of the references if you look are on the company website and are promotional puff pieces that reference Clayton only insofar as they are talking about the firm.  |►  ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 17:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Listen, go ahead and nuke the article if you want to. I won't go running to anyone about how some great injustice took place. AfD's are not cut and dried (otherwise why ask for comments?) and these aren't votes. Y'all get my considered opinion offered up (lightly in this case) and can do with it what you will. I appreciate your passion in this, but I don't think this is a big enough deal to waste a lot of my time justifying the notability of this guy. My opinion, based on reading the article, based on a loose weighing of cited sources (weak sources? yes. But we've all seen MUCH weaker survive to this day), makes me lean towards a keep in this case. I think if I based my opinion/advice on what I personally liked or disliked (and I dislike this article) I would be giving my honest contributions to wikipedia short shrift. Carry on. --Quartermaster (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Quartermaster is my twin brother, separated at birth. Well put. Carrite (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll strike the keep, I'm not married to this staying. Carrite (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I think he fails WP:BIO. I don't think being a VC and businessman makes you notable. The sources are mostly self generated from his website. The NY times page is a Special Report in the Global Business section, which means they were paid to write. It is advertising after all. There is concomitant article which describes the capital fund. It has a fairly extensive duplication of whats in this article. I think both should be removed. There are entirely non notable. scope_creep (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2010 (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.