Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Soros


 * 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 no consensus. "Keep" arguments have generally been pretty flimsy but there's no consensus for deletion. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Jonathan Soros

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Based fromthe user's patterns and activities, there's enough to suggest this may have in fact been a paid advertisement and, about the article, the apPROD still applies because the fact there's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone else. What's listed here is still trivial and unconvincing and searches mirrored this. There's no compromises if WP:NOT is involved and, in this state, this seems like a business listing exactly. SwisterTwister  talk  19:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As usual the nominator is using the Eric Morecambe style of writing in his deletion nomination (all the right words—but not necessarily in the right order) so it's a bit difficult to pin down exactly what we are supposed reply to, but it seems that the contention is that this was produced for advertising purposes. Apart from any other consideration, does anyone really believe that George Soros's son needs to advertise on Wikipedia? The article cites plenty of reliable sources confirming notability, and is much less promotional than most of our articles about financiers and political donors. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , is that a vote to "keep"?--— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a comment that this shouldn't be dismissed as "a paid advertisement", but I'm unsure about notability independent of his father. It's very difficult to discern whether most of the available sources only discuss him at all because he is his father's son, or whether they are based on his independent notability but mention his father in addition to this. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep pases WP:GNG. Sources have significant coverage (whole articles) from The New York Times and the Washington Post. Stickee (talk) 05:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I am very skeptical that the notability may be derived from his famous father.  DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but I'm not getting the point. Are you saying that if the press he receives is due to his being George Soros' son, then that does not mean he is notable? Or, are you saying that you don't think his press coverage / all of the coverage is because he is his father's son?--— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Most of his press does seem to put him in context of his father (including article titles used in the article right now), but there is also press on HighBeam (28 articles) and in the news (104 articles) that mention him without naming his father, George (or anyone named George, for that matter). that I queried to exclude "George" (but doesn't always exclude him). So, I am going to start there and see what can be built in the article to prove WP:GNG and/or other notability guidelines.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Clarification - strike out + added info in underline.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - What I am finding is that he is most noteworthy in his role trying to shape American politics - particularly eliminating the electoral college and putting organizations in place to offset the Supreme Court ruling that removed limits on the amounts of money that billionaires could contribute to campaigns and drive election results. There is plenty out there about that the effectiveness of his Friends of Democracy PAC aka the anti-PAC PAC (98 news items) and his role with Every Voice, National Popular Vote Inc., and other political advocacy groups IMO to meet WP:GNG, but I'm not enjoying the topic enough to build it up even though it might be deleted. So, I'll wait and see how the vote turns out.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete no sources show he is notable independent of his father.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unfortunately the fact remains that the subject passes WP:GNG, even based on the sources cited. The article needs a serious rewrite though - perhaps the remedy here is a WP:PROMO tag. Fiachra10003 (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I took a question about the promotional tone to Talk:Jonathan Soros.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The question is:, Regarding your comment The article needs a serious rewrite though - perhaps the remedy here is a WP:PROMO tag at Articles for deletion/Jonathan Soros, what do you think sounds too promotional?— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. Too many vague adjectives: "major" donor ... "sweeping" campaign finance reforms - without any specificity.  Citizens United v. FEC was a "sweeping" campaign finance reform - has he supported that?  2.  Unsourced statements like: "He supports movements like the National Popular Vote"  3.  Weird stuff like ".. it and TCS Capital invested Rs. 30 crore in the online fashion retailer, largely mens wear. Yepme had a goal of obtaining $100 in funding in 2015.[11]" Well, a crore is a unit of measure that it fairly unintelligible to non-Indian readers; $100? - well, my 6-year-old has a goal of obtaining $100 in funding for a new Barbie Castle, too. Fiachra10003 (talk) 13:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I made these edits.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Sources such as Reuters indicate notability and the rest is then a matter of ordinary editing rather than deletion, per WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew D. (talk) 10:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - The subject is George Soro's son and has an impressive flow of reliable sources. Nothing much needs to be said. Scorpion293 (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * How is this a policy-based comment? We never accept articles because of the father's occupation, and our stated notabilites state this, WP:NOTINHERITED and it's not negotiable with "nothing needs to be said". We haven't accepted articles for the Gates family children, so we can't simply say "It's notable because of their parents".

SwisterTwister  talk  19:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you forget to read the other half of the sentence? Because it's the reason why I chose to keep the article. Scorpion293 (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge into Geo Soros article. Notability comes from the father. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think about what his notability looks like if we take is father out of the equation, and the work that he's done forming the PAC and other political advocacy work, I believe make him notable.
 * If his article content is merged into the George Soros article, what does that look like, an entire section for the son, pare all this info down to a couple of sentences?— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Simply citing GNG or "But his father is notable!" carries no weigh the concerns here concluding not only the fact this was by a multi-account spammer but the fact there's simply no genuine substance for the man's own convincibg article, apart from his father. It's fair to state the Keep comments have'nt been policy-based or countering the serious concerns here.  SwisterTwister   talk  21:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I totally agree that his article should not be based upon his father's notability, per my statement I think about what his notability looks like if we take is father out of the equation, and the work that he's done forming the PAC and other political advocacy work, I believe make him notable.
 * I didn't just state GNG, I provided queries of that excluded the use of the word "George" HighBeam (28 articles) and in the news (104 articles) and articles just relevant to his Friends of Democracy PAC aka the anti-PAC PAC (98 news items), which have some overlap with the first 2 queuries. And now, queries based upon his name, without filtering, I get 1430 news articles and 260 books. There are 27 hits at the New York Times, some of which were written by Jonathan Soros.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - I will work on this today and hopefully his notability will become clearer. As an FYI, this article has consistently had about 200 hits per day and peaked at 2,100 in a day in November, not huge, but a number of people are coming to Wikipedia to read about him.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Added vote - saw I never voted.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk)  17:56, 30 December 2016 (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.