Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Saviano


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Jeff Saviano

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Clearly fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Not finding any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Edwardx (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC subject is covered in many reliable sources including TaxHistory, NYTimes, Reuters, Bloomberg, AccountingToday, TEDx talk,BizJournals and many others. Riteboke (talk) 10:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Draftify and decline. No in-depth coverage of the person at all. Doesn't satisfy WP:NPEOPLE, WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Below is my assessment of the current sources in the article.

1. : Behind the NYT paywall. Considering my source assessments below, I'm not inclined to bother digging this one out. No matter what this article contains, it's only one source.

2. :Not significant coverage: No coverage at all. Schedule of sessions at a conference, which lists the subject as a participant

3. :Not a reliable source: No coverage at all. Schedule of a roundtable discussion, which lists the subject as a panelist. There is a bio--most likely submitted by the subject.

4. :Not significant coverage: No coverage at all. One-sentence quote of something the subject said.

5. :Not independent: This is the subject's profile page at their employer.

6. :Not significant coverage: No coverage at all. The subject is quoted a few times, talking about a taxation issue.

7. :Not significant coverage: No coverage at all. The subject's name is listed in the front matter as a member of an NYU advisory board. This appears to be the only mention of the subject in the book.

8. :Not significant coverage: No coverage at all. Video of a live-stream panel discussion. The subject talks about financial data technology.

9. :Not significant coverage: No coverage at all. Video of a podcast, wherein the subject talks about launching innovation programs.

10. :Not significant coverage: No coverage at all. Audio of a webcast, which includes audio of the subject speaking about taxation on fossil fuels.

11. :Not significant coverage: No coverage at all. This appears to be a synopsis of a past online panel discussion. The subject is listed as a participant.

12. :Not significant coverage: No coverage at all. The subject's employer held an event for tech startups to make pitches to them. The subject probably participated, and is quoted in a couple sentences about the event.

13. :Not independent: (broken link) A press release from the subject's employer, announcing the opening of a lab. The subject is quoted, saying something about it. The actual link is here.

14. : This isn't even related to the subject. This is an article co-authored by a different "Jeff Saviano" here.

—Scottyoak2 (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. While there are glancing mentions of him in several articles on tax policy and similar, I don't think it adds up to WP:SIGCOV.  No sign of WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Almost nothing in GS, so not much impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC).
 * Delete per the source analysis above. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NACADEMIC, and WP:ANYBIO. I will add by saying that I have a subscription access to The New York Times, and the subject is only briefly quoted in the article. The article is not about him, and we don't count mere quotes as indications of notability or as significant coverage.4meter4 (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2021 (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.