Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Dahl


 * 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   keep. Cirt (talk) 10:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

James Dahl

 * - (|View AfD) (View log)


 * Not a notable person. Article lacks third party references. (TurnWild (talk))
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This is tough because the name is too common to search on its own. However searches in GNews w.r.t. the companies he is said to be/have been involved in turn up only three hits, and all of the them are more or less passing mentions of him as a corporate officer. He doesn't seem to have done anything notable. Mangoe (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. His name isn't that common, really, and in conjunction with Rock Creek Capital I found this. But he generates plenty of coverage as a former trader for Michael Milken who testified against his boss: see this search. That the article doesn't reflect this is a matter of puffery, I believe. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Strong Keep I added the real notability, the part he will actually be historically notable for. The refs need some touch up, but I think I got the essentials. The books on Milikan will also need to be checked. I also warned the editor responsible.  To be fair, we probably need articles on Milikan's other key associates.    DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * reluctant keep He seems to be something of a one event guy, but it is hard to argue that a reasonably sourced article can be produced. Mangoe (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - per sourcing provided by DGG. -- Whpq (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG, I think notability has been demonstrated in this case. JBsupreme (talk) 21:14, 30 December 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.