Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Wintrob


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Jay Wintrob

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Some editors think the bio "blatantly passes" but others think "probably don't need articles for four [Oaktree] executives". My own opinion is perhaps a footnote to a notable company but does not rise to own article per WP:BIO. There seems to be a creeping interpretation of WP:ANYBIO such that CEOs of big firms are considered notable without evidence, but I challenge this idea, as I think did at Articles for deletion/Jeff Jacobson (CEO). This article is sourced to stuff like his congregation's newsletter, which does not, I think, meet the spirit of GNG. - Brianhe (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: my search for reliable independent sources gave hundreds of results in different languages. But more interestingly maybe, it showed that this person was already "blatantly" notable even before joining Oaktree. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Like Passed over to be CEO, AIG's life insurance head resigning which mentions his name and title but very little else? That's what I'm finding in a basic WP:BEFORE. - Brianhe (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am of the opinion that being one of the 2 contenders to lead the World's 40th largest company is indeed a clear sign of notability. Todd Martin lost the 2 Grand Slam finals he played, but he is notable nonetheless. Wikipedia is a generalist encyclopedia, so we have to talk about business. And we need to find other ways to fight COIs than just deleting articles about blatantly notable topics. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * COI hasn't been mentioned here so I'm not sure why it's coming up now. It still seems that you are drawing upon a non-existent "big firm CEO" automatic notability. There is no such guideline or consensus. Todd Martin is WP:OTHERSTUFF and orthogonal to the discussion. Brianhe (talk) 04:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a link to Conflict of interest in the first sentence of this AfD. Which by the way you wrote. And I thank you for this link, which indeed gives some context to the AfD and the PROD that preceded it. For the rest, WP:GNG is what I am drawing upon. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete the coverage is just passing mentions and not substantial coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - notability is weak. A mention at Oaktree Capital would be appropriate, but there's not enough reliable info for a standalone article. John Nagle (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - coverage seems to all be of the WP:ROUTINE variety, along with listings and simple mentions. Onel 5969  TT me 01:24, 6 March 2017 (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.