Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Mandl


 * 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 WP:SNOW delete and salt. BD2412 T 15:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Eric Mandl

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

US Investment Banker whose BLP was created by an WP:SPA, and had a WP:PROMO element (some of which I have edited out). The only RS for GNG that I could find on the subject were short notifications in the media when he changed jobs (which he has done a few times). He has appeared on Bloomberg to give views, but I don't think that is GNG. Can't find any WP:SIGCOV piece on him. Ultimately, I feel his WP BLP would be the central part of his media notability, but it should be the other way around. Britishfinance (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * We would appreciate you reconsidering this recommendations -- your edits improved the page and we appreciate that. but we would appreciate if it was not deleted.  thank you  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.46.75.3 (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you are also the SPA, who has solely been making edits on Wikipedia regarding Eric Mandl on various articles? Britishfinance (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Voting for deletion, as the subject has not accrued sufficient coverage to meet WP:NBIO; they seem to be a run-of-the-mill businessperson. WP:SIGCOV mandates coverage be independent and in-depth, and while the subject is named in many press releases, they themselves have not accrued significant coverage when separated from more notable entities (WP:NOTINHERITED) they are affiliated with; indeed, most mentions of the subject in the sources cited only run for a sentence or two, and some citations failed to mention the subject at all. SamHolt6 (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Please note this was rejected multiple times at Draft and then pushed to mainspace to bypass AFC. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 23:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * We may need WP:SALTing. An IP blanked the article since the AfD was started (plus the unusual comment above by another IP). thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Draft has been histmerged to this one. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete yet more executive Linkedin. The Business Insider article is borderline but there aren't any other secondary sources that give significant coverage on his career. The rest are just news announcements / press releases.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Based on what's in the article right now, he appears to be a run of the mill business person. There's only a single reliable print source actually about him in the article, which is just about him getting a new job. It's the exact same incident in the Times. That's not significant coverage. At best, this is a case of a single event. At worst, an SPA has written this as an ad. Bearian (talk) 02:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Echoing Britishfinance, subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in RS & article creator has attempted to “game  the system” severally now. Celestina007 (talk) 03:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete and probably SALT as well given the attempt to circumvent AfC. Clearly a promotional article about an non-notable subject. Best, GPL93 (talk) 04:37, 11 December 2019 (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.