Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kweku Adoboli


 * 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 speedy keep, however, following WP:1E the article should likely be moved with a redirect to a more fitting title, such as 2011 UBS trading scandal. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Kweku Adoboli

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The person alleged to be the rogue trader who caused a USD 2 billion loss to Swiss bank UBS today. It's likely that he fails WP:BLP1E at this time. What's notable is not the person but the event, which is covered (although not well) at UBS, which should suffice for now. Should media coverage of the person, as opposed to the event, persist over a period of months or years as it has for Jérôme Kerviel, then the recreation of a separate article would be warranted.  Sandstein  18:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, he's number 7 on the List of trading losses. The lack of information is because it happened today. Also, the nomination is by someone whose main activity is to delete article. Tony (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Neutral - WP:BLP1E pretty clearly applies here. On the other hand, judging by the amount of cash involved and considering the established notability of characters like Nick Leeson, it seems pretty obvious that this guy will pass BLP1E in the near future.  Granted we're not meant to be making judgments on predicted future notability. Quick question; does this event have an article? If not, we should probably rename (i.e. something like 2011 UBS Unauthorized Trading Scandal) rather than delete. NickCT (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - In just one day the person has been the focus of articles (or online stories for those who missed the deadline) by AP, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, BBC, and many, many other top financial news providers. Rogue trader stories are always closely tied to a single person.  In any case, if this AfD goes 7 days there will be thousands of articles on the story by that time.  Just search "Kweku Adoboli" on google news on Sept. 22 if you don't believe me.  Before this incident there were 0.  Smallbones (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)  Just checked Google news 1,688 news articles now. Smallbones (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - at least in the absence of a separate article on the event. I'm not convinced that a subsection on the UBS article will suffice in terms of the amount of info and interest that will come in over the next few days. Plus I'm loathe to delete anything that will almost inevitably be recreated rightly at some future point and in the interim be recreated ad nauseum by well meaning editors not party to this discussion and then repeatedly deleted. d a n n o  19:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As an alternative to deletion, the article could be renamed and adapted to cover the event rather than the person. I probably should have thought of that earlier.  Sandstein   19:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that that might be good as an interim measure unless/until we have enough to justify breaking out the Adoboli section into its own article space. d a n n o  19:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to reiterate my comments above, I'd support an interim renaming. NickCT (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Extremely notable. The personality of a rogue trader must also be taken into account when considering the event. Deletion would be ridiculous. --Tovojolo (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Suppose someone previously unknown assassinated the president of the US.  It'd be silly to nominate an article on the guy 5 minutes after the article is created with the rationale that the guy is only known for a single event.  Some individuals are clearly going to be notable as soon as the "one" event occurs. Quarl (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. He might be notable for one event, but it's quite a significant event. How many people can boast of losing $2bn? Seriously though, if we don't keep this article, we should at least have one on the event itself, which is certainly notable. Perhaps Adoboli's article can redirect to something like 2011 UBS crisis with the information from here merged to that article. Just a thought. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. There has been many reliable news coverage citing his name. There is no need to delete this page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muani (talk • contribs) 04:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename and redirect as per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E and NickCT above. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect per WP:BLP1E. The question is not whether the incident is notable (it is), nor whether he will be notable in the future (he might be) nor even how many newspaper articles talk about this incident today (zillions).  The question is whether we have enough information for a biography of the man.  Just now I removed such scintillating trivia as the claim that he has 11 friends on facebook who are current or former employees of UBS.  Gee, he has friends on facebook... from work.  This is not a biography, this is just collecting scraps of information that don't add up to a biography.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not sure I like NickCT's 2011 UBS Unauthorized Trading Scandal suggestion above, since authorisation (or lack of authorisation) seems like the kind of thing debated in a court of law. Maybe 2011 UBS Trading Scandal? 2011 UBS Investment Banking Scandal? Given the 2000 hits on Google news in the last three days I'm assuming that scandal is safe. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. People causing such huge losses get 'famous', their name will be known also in some years: remember i.e. Nick Leeson and Yasuo Hamanaka (1,6 bn USD). The name of Kweku Adoboli will imo stand for two questions:
 * how - quite exactly three years after the Lehman desaster - could that happen ? Didn't many banks make holy vows to improve / tighten / sharpen their internal risk control ? Didn't regulatory authorities enforce that ?
 * is it really reasonable to give so much money into the hands of so young men - have they enough experience of life ?
 * Imo, his name will stay famous; maybe his photo will be an icon (symbol) for these questions / grievances --Neun-x (talk) 10:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * * Response to Neun-x: Well, ask yourself, what did his father do? A diplomat. Did the father have connections? Do people put money in various places in Europe? Do they expect favors in return... who knows...? But an angle to research, and if WP:RS, add. History2007 (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. He has already made himself one of the most notable traders in history.  And it seems like his notoriety will only grow--there seems to be a good possibility that his actions will be the final straw that will cause UBS to ditch investment banking as well as galvanizing support for UK legislation to require banks to ring-fence investment banking from consumer/commercial banking, which would make his influence on the finance industry outsize w.r.t the actual loss he incurred.  eyrieowl (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I still have not seen any coverage of this case which did not in some way focuse on this trader. I think there is quite a lot of information out there about him, and given the size of the loss there will undoubtedly come more very soon. I think given the nature of a rogue trader case like this, there will always be a lot of focus on the trader in question.TheFreeloader (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I just made very good use of it.  I didn't want to know about the scandal, because I'd just read a news article about it.  I came here to find out him, what it known about him as a notable individual, such as his bio and such.  Absolutely keep, but some information might not be necessary as you already link to an article about the scandal.  Use this article instead of including his background and such in the article about the scandal.   67.246.33.203 (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep What do we need $3 bil loss? $4 bil? I say over $1 bil is notable these days. A decade ago $500 million would have been, but these days with all the mortgage backed securities and all, $1 bil gets you noticed. Does anyone know if his job has been filled yet? It seems so easy to get into UBS.. just kidding. But he is notable. History2007 (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Front page of today's WSJ and making international headlines. Definitely notable.  Faceless Enemy (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The first thing I did to find the wikipedia page was to google his name. The name of the incident itself is not yet well know. His name is the most recognisable term in this incident right now. Vapour (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * merge or move to 2011 UBS rogue trader scandal. What's with all the keep votes? Clearly untenable under WP:1E. Seriously, why do people bother commenting in AfD debates if they have no idea of how our inclusion criteria? The article can be salvaged by making it about the event, not the individual. All that is needed is a move. What is crystal clear is that the article as it stands does not meed WP:BIO. --dab (𒁳) 18:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * merge or move Agree with Dbachmann. Merge or move  to 2011 UBS rogue trader scandal.  WP:BLP1E definitely applies here.  Also agree with nominator that this can be broken out into a separate article later.  Malke 2010 (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes, it's a person known for only one event, but in this case the person IS the event. Also, the trading scandal itself doesn't have its own page, merely a section in UBS. And, of course, similar cases have articles about the rogue traders themselves, rather than the event. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  20:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The media coverage of the incident has focused on Adoboli himself, as well as the implications of his actions, thus making him notable. The names of traders who committed similar acts of large-scale fraud have entered the public consciousness in the past, such as Nick Leeson, and as such have articles of their own. There is no evidence so far to suggest that Adoboli is not equally notable. --Tom Slaughter is going to win (talk) 21:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It's not as though there was a whole gallery of rogue traders, just this one guy. He is the event.  Would you argue then that Nick Leeson should be moved to 1995 Barings Bank rogue trader scandal?  I'll concede that WP:BLP1E does suggest that in general, when there is a single article it should reflect the event.  However I think WP:CRITERIA supports the current title, as I feel users are more likely to be looking for this with Kweku Adoboli than "UBS rogue trader scandal". --Saforrest (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:BLP1E tells us that a biography is fine in such a case: "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981—a separate biography may be appropriate. ". WP:PRESERVE tells us that we shouldn't even be thinking about deleting when we have numerous good sources like the BBC and FT. Warden (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Snowball Keep, and besides, Colonel Warden's interpretation of the WP:BLP1E policy appears to be the correct one. Seriously, people, if you are going to cite Wikipedia policy, at least have the decency to read it first.  -- Eastlaw  talk ⁄ contribs 03:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It defies logic and belief that this article is being considered for deletion. The person is definitely notable, has played a large role in this event, and merits a separate article. There are also enough information about him floating about the media at the moment.(1tephania (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2011 (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.