Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter A. Appel


 * 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. This is a close call and I'm happy to review on request.

I'm giving little weight to JPL's usual white noise delete !vote. On the other side, I'm disregarding the contributions from the SPAs. Unscintillating's contribution of a Bloomberg listing adds no value, as k.e. is correct in that it is not editorial content and there are such listings for countless non-notable companies and individuals. Even if it were a reliable source, it would be a reliable source for the company, not necessarily for the article subject.

But the nominator and k.e. are fundamentally correct that this isn't a well-sourced article: the vast majority of references are to non-byline pieces in redlinked publications. It is definitely not well-sourced enough for a BLP, but even if the subject were not still among us, the vast majority of the sources in the article discuss the subject's company, and not the subject. This article cannot stand as a BLP without reliable sources, which trumps any keep argument put forward in the discussion.  A  Train talk 17:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Peter A. Appel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable businessperson. Article reads like a resume. Rusf10 (talk) 05:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 08:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 08:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Did some further research and there is not much press regarding the subject, but there has been some throughout the years. While not very well known, his business accomplishments are undeniably notable and rare. Among other things, he has been a founder of at least two multi-billion dollar enterprises, one of which is noted by Forbes to be one of the largest public companies in the world, and the other noted by Baron's as one of the most profitable. Comes down to what it means to be "notable". If it's limited to those with a lot of press, then those far less accomplished than the subject but who actively court attention will fill Wikipedia's pages and those who are clearly not self-promotional, like the subject, won't make the cut. I vote to keep. User:Bernice McCullers. 16:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, Arch Capital is on the Forbes list...at #970. Regardless, of whether 970 is notable or not, that would be about the company, not the individual. What does it mean to be "notable"? We have an article on that, see WP:PEOPLE "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,and independent of the subject." So yes, he does need to have press coverage.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The sentence you cite in the article does not mean that a person must have significant coverage to be notable. Rather, it means that if a person has significant coverage then he or she is presumed to be notable, and that notability would then need to be disproven in order to delete.  Having significant coverage does not mean that a person is automatically notable; it is merely a presumption which can be disproven (because a defendant in a criminal case is presumed innocent, it doesn't mean he is innocent.  It means that he or she must be proven guilty).  Moreover, a person is not precluded from meeting the notability standard solely because he or she does not have significant coverage.  Lacking significant coverage means that this person is not afforded the benefit of the presumption of notability and must meet the standard of notability by being worthy of notice.  The very same article you cite, WP: PEOPLE, describes this standard and is set forth in Johnny Smith's comment below.  It is clear from the article that significant press coverage is not a prerequisite for inclusion; lacking it just makes it more difficult to demonstrate notability.  While I agree that the subject does not have sufficient coverage to warrant a presumption of notability, I do believe that his accomplishments, which are fully sourced and presented without any aggrandizement or embellishment whatsoever, make him worthy of notice and that the article meets Wikipedia's standards for notability. User:Bernice McCullers. 00:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - In response to Rusf10's comment, the subject does have press coverage, even if not extensive, and it's clear he could have a lot more if he sought publicity, which he obviously does not. More importantly, though, while press coverage is relevant, it is not dispositive.  The media is not the ultimate arbiter of who is included in Wikipedia.  If it were, then accomplished people who do no seek publicity or who the media fail to find, which happens frequently in industries that don't generally attract media attention, will be excluded even if worthy of notice.  If a Wikipedia editor comes across a person who he or she deems notable and posts an article, then at that point the debate for deletion should focus first and foremost on whether the person is in fact notable (i.e., worthy of notice), not whether they have a lot of press coverage.  There are countless people included in Wikipedia that have done far less than this guy but who have more press attention.  Wikipedia editors who legitimately find people that either the media misses or who are not self-promotional should be rewarded for their effort, and deleting their articles will not encourage this useful work.  People who are relatively unaccomplished but seek media attention should not be included in Wikipedia solely because they are effective at self-promotion. User:Bernice McCullers. 23:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You may not like the criteria of notability wikipedia has, but that is the criteria. By our standards, he's not notable. I think you are confusing success with notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that you think I am confusing success with notability but I believe you are confusing media coverage with notability. As you can see from the comment below regarding Wikipedia's definition of "notability", the critical question is whether the person is worthy of note.  Fame and press coverage are secondary; i.e., not irrelevant but less important.  So, yes a person who has had great success, even if unaccompanied by substantial press coverage, could very well be deemed worthy of notice, and therefore notable by Wikipedia's standards.  User:Bernice McCullers. 11:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Based on Wikipedia's definition of notability for people, the article should remain. According to applicable Wikipedia guidelines, "notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note" – that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary." Based on these guidelines, the subject is clearly notable. His business achievements are significant and worthy of notice.  The fact that he is not famous, while not irrelevant, is secondary. User:Johnny Smith 1776. 17:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have struck the bolded "keep" here to clarify to the closing administrator that this account is confirmed to be related to Bernice McCullers (see SPI), who has already used a bolded "keep" above. Mz7 (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment- Bernice McCullers and Johnny Smith 1776 are both single-purpose accounts WP:SPA that have contributed to this article.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - Rusf10, I don't see the logic behind attacking me because I contributed to the article. Given that I did much of the research for the article, I'm better positioned than most to comment on the subject's notability. Also, it's worth noting that Rusf10 (who doesn't even have a User page) and Johnpacklambert are either one and the same person, or have demonstrated an uncanny pattern of frequently arguing for the same deletions. User:Bernice McCullers. 22:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That was not an attack, it was a statement of fact. Your comments are an attack. Your account is exactly the type of account that is defined as SPA. The problem with SPAs is that they usually (but not always) have a Conflict of Interest WP:COI. As for your accusations, they are so absurd that I will not comment any further.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * My comment was not an attack. Like yours, it was a statement of fact.  And here are some more facts:  In the last three weeks alone, you have either nominated for deletion or participated in discussions for deletion of over 50 people (I have a full list of their names if you would like me to provide it).  In nearly every one of these, Johnpacklambert was right there with you, and every single time he voted to delete with you.  Let's repeat that -- in the millions of pages of Wikipedia, he not only appeared with you on these relatively obscure pages over 50 times in just the past three weeks alone, he agreed with you every single time.  He often shows up when there is no real debate taking place and you need that second delete to support your nomination.  And here's perhaps the most telling part -- the one time you voted to keep when you both appeared in the same deletion debate, Johnpacklambert voted to keep as well (see Mindi Messmer).  Your attack on small town mayors is particularly instructive.  While I find your obsession with these mayors to be comical (and your case for deletion to be generally correct), the fact that Johnpacklambert is there with you every step of the way makes it highly likely that you are either one and the same (a sockpuppet) or acting in concert (a meatpuppet).  It is nearly impossible, statistically, to draw any other conclusion.  And since your are wont to cite Wikipedia rules, let me cite WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT. So, are my comments really absurd, as you say?  User:Bernice McCullers. 11:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, you are making unfounded allegations. John Pack Lambert and I just have similar philosophies when it comes to deletion. If you are so convinced I'm a sockpuppet, I dare you to request an investigation. If not, then stop attacking me.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * If it was just a matter of you and John Pack Lambert having "similar philosophies when it comes to deletion," your voting records would not be identical, and there would not be such an extraordinarily high level of correlation in your participation together in deletion debates. Even if you are not the same person, the identical voting record and the extremely high correlation of participation smack of meatpuppetry.  As far as your dare goes, I'll give it some thought.  What I initially tried to do was debate the merits of the subject's inclusion by focusing on the crux of the issue -- what does "notability" mean under the rules and standards of Wikipedia?  Rather than genuinely debate me on its meaning, you made one attempt to counter my argument about notability (which I've responded to above), and then moved away from the debate on notability to imply that I don't have any credibility because I'm a so-called SPA.  Your digression from the merits forced me to focus on your and John Pack Lambert's credibility and relationship.  I did not come to this debate to attack you.  You called out my credibility, and I responded appropriately. User:Bernice McCullers. 00:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * As for your inference that I have a conflict of interest, it is completely unfounded. I am neither the subject nor related to him, nor do I have anything to gain by supporting his inclusion in Wikipedia.  I do know of him and simply find his career to be rare and noteworthy and one which warrants a Wikipedia article.  He belongs in the group of people who have had outlier success but have not engaged in self-promotion, have not been discovered by the media or have declined media attention when approached, and who do not otherwise seek attention. This is a person worthy of note, and is therefore notable under Wikipedia standards, regardless of whether or not his media coverage has risen to a level that satisfies you. As a result, I believe you should withdraw your nomination to delete.  If you choose not to do so, an uninvolved admin should decide WP: AFD/AI. Spending so much of your time editing Wikipedia does not make you the judge and jury as to who should be included in its pages. And while I appreciate your prodigious efforts to raise the bar at Wikipedia (I happen to agree with many of your deletion nominations), you need to play by the rules as well and avoid hypocritical attacks on others. User:Bernice McCullers. 11:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Judge and jury", right? If so, then why have a discussion? There certainly is not enough input into this yet to build a consensus. It seems like you're saying you support deleting non-notable people except when you write the article.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I have never said nor implied that I support deleting non-notable people except when I write the article. That's a nonsensical insult and an ad hominem attack, without any basis for support.  Regardless, I agree that there is not enough input to build a consensus.  My guess is that if neither you nor I solicit input (which would be inappropriate) or resort to sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry (a clear breach of protocol), then there won't be much in the way of additional input that would lead to a legitimate consensus, one way or the other.  I also feel that leaving the deletion banner on the article for any significant period of time after the seven day period would be unfair to the subject.  Given that we are in disagreement as to what constitutes notability, and that there is insufficient input for a consensus to form, my suggestion is for you to withdraw your recommendation for deletion and revisit the article down the road and determine then if you think renomination for deletion is appropriate. User:Bernice McCullers 00:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * — Bernice McCullers (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Credible claim of notability backed by reliable and verifiable sources about the subject. Alansohn (talk) 06:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ! dave  20:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- an unremarkable CEO with no indications of significance or notability. Wikipedia is not a CV hosting service. The attack by SPAs is suspicious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K.e.coffman (talk • contribs) 19:12, December 27, 2017 (UTC)
 * This delete comment is from an anonymous editor and should thus be ignored for purposes of forming a consensus. However, I will not ignore it for purposes of setting the record straight. First, it is absurd and ignorant, as well as snide and disrespectful, to say that the topic is “unremarkable.”  In addition to the sources that are referenced in the article, I have found others that contain information that I have not yet fully verified (so I did not include) which, among other things, note that after graduating Harvard Law School and embarking on a very successful career as a lawyer, during which he became one of the youngest partners in the history of a major international law firm, he then transitioned to a business career where he went on to become (i) a successful CEO of a publicly-traded company while in his 30s; (ii) a founder of a number of successful start-ups, including at least three multi-billion dollar enterprises employing thousands of people (an insurance and reinsurance company (Arch Capital), a reinsurance company (Aeolus Re) and an asset management company (Aeolus Capital Management)); (iii) a lead investor in some extraordinarily successful transactions; (iv) an owner in a major league franchise that went on to win a World Series (Houston Astros); and (v) a philanthropist who has donated millions of dollars to charity.  The subject is, by any standard, "remarkable."


 * Second, while short on real details about the topic’s life (perhaps because he appears to avoid publicity), the article does not read like a CV. If it did, it would have included some of the other information found online that is difficult to verify, like the fact that after it was founded Arch Capital became both the fastest growing insurance and reinsurance company in the history of each industry, or that Aeolus Re was one of the reinsurance industry’s most profitable start-ups ever, or that the subject was one of the youngest partners in the history of a major international law firm.  If this was a resume, information like that would certainly be included.  It was not included, at least not by me, because I could not find independent verification.  But I have no reason to doubt its validity.  And while Wikipedia is not a CV hosting service, implying that the article is designed to serve that purpose for the subject is beyond idiotic.  The subject is obviously someone of great wealth, perhaps even a billionaire – do you really think he needs to get his resume out there?


 * Third, it's not clear what you mean by "suspicious." I have already acknowledged that I am a SPA, but I have no conflict of interest whatsoever.  Again, I'm not the subject nor do I have anything to gain from contributing to the article.  I know of the subject and strongly believe he is worthy of note and warrants an article.  Period.  Being a SPA does not mean that my arguments for notability are without merit and both the article and my contributions to it are well sourced.  What's far more suspicious is that your comment was made anonymously.  Why not reveal yourself?  Maybe my response to Unscitillating's comment below explains why you didn't. User:Bernice McCullers 11:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Something else interesting is that the topic's parents are from New Jersey and [redact reference to a wedding officiant] ref. Unscintillating (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Why is it interesting that the topic's parents are from NJ and that he was married by a rabbi? Who cares where his parents are from or who he was married by?  I don't believe this was an anti-Semitic dog whistle, but why would you make a comment about a rabbi?  Why is that relevant?  In order to avoid having anyone misinterpret your seemingly random reference to NJ and a rabbi, let me take a shot at trying to figure it out.  Is it because you are aware of the dispute between Rusf10 and Alansohn (which I came across as I was researching the remarkable correlation of deletion commentary between Rusf10 and John Pack Lambert) and you think (or know) that the anonymous editor is Rusf10/John Pack Lambert and are implying that Alansohn may have some connection to my SPA?  And is your reference to NJ and a rabbi your way of referring to Alansohn because he has a heavy editorial focus on NJ and a Jewish surname?  Without explicitly referencing Alansohn in your comment, one can only conclude that you believed the anonymous commenter above would know who you are referring to and also be aware of, or perhaps part of, the Rusf10/Alansohn dispute.  Otherwise, how would the anonymous commentator know what you are talking about?  Perhaps I am way off the mark here, and the comment has nothing to do with Alansohn.  If that's the case, in order to avoid any misinterpretation, you might want to consider explaining your vague and completely out of context reference to NJ and a rabbi.


 * However, if I'm correct that you are trying to imply that Alansohn might have some relationship to me or my SPA, that is absolutely false. I only know of Alansohn as a result of this deletion debate.  I looked him up after his Keep vote and read his user page and some of his contributions.  In addition to observing his dispute with Rusf10, I also noted that he is a very seasoned and well regarded editor, who ranks near the top of Wikipedia's list of most active editors (out of approximately 134,000 active editors, he ranks 32nd).  Why in the world would this guy bother to utilize or otherwise get involved with a SPA?  He's made nearly half a million edits to Wikipedia.


 * Rather than trying to undermine Alansohn's Keep vote with a vague and totally misguided insinuation, shouldn't the only Delete vote other than the nominator's (Rusf10) be questioned? This Delete vote comes from John Park Lambert, who has appeared together with Rusf10 in over 50 deletion requests in the last few weeks alone.  In every single one of these they voted the same way (including the one Keep!).  This is, of course, a statistical impossibility, unless they are the same person or working in concert.  Rusf10 responded in the initial debate that they just have similar deletion philosophies (how does he know?) but, even if that's true, no two people just randomly agree with each other 50 out of 50 times, particularly when many of those deletion requests were close calls.  Is it possible that the anonymous editor is, in fact, Rusf10 or John Pack Lambert and he tried to get another Delete in the mix and did so anonymously to avoid being accused of sock or meat puppetry or canvassing?  Regardless, there is no denying that Alansohn's Keep is credible, while it is certainly questionable whether this article ever received a legitimate second delete necessary to support Rusf10's deletion request. User:Bernice McCullers 11:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've redacted the reference to the wedding officiant. As for the New Jersey coupling, User:rusf10 has announced that New Jersey has an "excessive" numbers of articles.  This has been brought to the attention of WP:ANI, .  Unscintillating (talk) 02:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The "anonymous editor" is . He just forgot to sign it, but since you're so good at looking up editing history, you probably could have figured that out yourself.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was me. Sorry, I forgot to sign. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize, it happens. And its not your fault that Bernice McCullers wants to throw all sorts of allegations at me. But I'm getting her (or him) taken care of now.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Rusf10, I will be responding to your investigation shortly. User:Bernice McCullers 14:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I feel not need to defend myself here, you have made it blatantly obvious that you have a Conflict of Interest with this article and are resorting to dominating this discussion with personal attacks to try to get your way.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The non-primary sourcing in the article satisfies WP:BASIC.  I added a bloomberg cite to the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Unscintillating’s comment that the non-primary sourcing satisfies Wikipedia’s standards. In fact, if you go to the user page of !dave, the editor who relisted the article for the second time, you are redirected to a page,, that suggests an approach for evaluating sources when determining notability.  Using this criteria, the sourcing of the article is clearly sufficient to satisfy notability requirements. User:Bernice McCullers 11:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment on Bloomberg link -- the link added by editor Unscintillating is to material provided by S&P Market Intelligence service: link. It is not editorial content by Bloomberg and not an independent source suitable for establishing notability. This topic of Bloomberg Business News vs S&P Market Intelligence has been discussed multiple times on other AfDs. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The copyright and branding is by Bloomberg LP, who depend on the reliability of their information as part of their business model. As per our article their 2008 value was $22.5 billion.The creator of the data in the profile (author), S&P Global Market Intelligence, is a division of S&P Global, who had assets of $8.6 billion in 2016.The predecessor investing.businessweek.com was vetted in two discussions both in the same archive of WP:RSN, .  Unscintillating (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The copyright & branding has nothing to do with it. This material is often user-submitted; there's no editorial oversight or fact-checking, as would be required of reliable secondary sources. I had a discussion like this elswhere; I'm surprised you still put forth such links. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:14, 31 December 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.