Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rio Caraeff


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Spartaz Humbug! 05:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Rio Caraeff

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Impressive career but I’m not seeing in depth coverage in reliable independent sources to indicate notability. Mccapra (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music,  and Entertainment. Mccapra (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment this one might have a chance. There's this quote and this, seems notable-adjacent. Oaktree b (talk) 01:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This coverage in the NY Times . Most articles are typical, he did this, he did that etc. Not sure we have notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of sourcing. I can only find trivial mentions of the subject. Really tried on this one, just can't find enough for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Passes WP:Sigcov. Appears to receive significant coverage in reliable sources. Maliner (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. The Hollywood Reporter isn't good enough, and the second one is an interview. Couldn't find more IRS. Suitskvarts (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Relisting to review newly added sources (but there seems to be one editor who has a COI here). Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - article is poor but subject has enough referencing coverage to establish notability. - Indefensible (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources recently added, which appear ample to demonstrate sigcov under WP:GNG. (I'm a bit unclear on the above objections to "he did this, he did that" coverage, which don't seem to have a policy basis, but in any event the material added by Indefensible should put the matter to rest.) -- Visviva (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Lots of leaving, join company + plus an interview + non-rs x of y ref. Non-notable at this time. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO.   scope_creep Talk  03:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Please do not forget to sign your comments. - Indefensible (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: A specific analysis of the references used both initially and since the AfD began would be very helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The poor attempt at WP:HEYMANN by the addition of simplistic routine coverage of person leaving the job, arriving at the job + a passing mention of being on a board of govenors. None of which is an indication of notability and non of it is in in-depth.    scope_creep Talk  03:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep sources currently provided clearly establish notability. Unclear on what the issue is with Caraeff's job changing -- as Visviva noted, that's unrelated to any policy. When he changed jobs, several publications took the opportunity to look at his career and the significance of his move. The result was substantial coverage. For once I didn't have to go looking for more refs. -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: This is the page creation of a new and apparently undeclared paid editor User:Shadowaxe990 (here's one revision of their sandbox). The pagespace might be retitled as Resume of Rio Caraeff which I would assess as a list-class WP:BLP. If I sound flippant it's because this is a list of press releases and overblown bare mentions assembled almost entirely with commas and "best of" lists of dubious worth. I see not a single citation which I could arguably classify as meeting significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. I'll assess sources (as of this datestamp): cites 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 are entirely resume/hr-related, routine business news; 3 and 6 are interviews. #8 is his appearance in Vanity Fair's 2010 "not quite in the top 100" top 43 list, #9 is another honorable mention (not in THR's 2012 top 50, but...), #10 he ranks 32nd in Fortune's 2009 40 under 40, #11 he's one of Fast Company's 2014 top 1000 most creative people in business (look at the list of 1000 alphabetized links), and finally Evening Standard's 2011 top 1000 Pop & Rock list. This is a list of list appearances and not the top-flight ones either. No offense to the subject who should really find himself a better undeclared paid editor. BusterD (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete or draftify He's almost there on GNG, but most sources in the article don't count towards GNG per BusterD's analysis, and regardless this is a CV masquerading as an encyclopedia article. SportingFlyer  T · C  21:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Personal attacks on the article creator aside, I am not seeing any citations to any policy or guideline that would justify excluding these cites as entirely resume/hr-related, routine business news:, , , . All of these are articles that are entirely about the article subject, which is substantially more than required under WP:SIGCOV. And unless there is some issue that hasn't been put forth here, Vox/Recode, Variety, and the Hollywood Reporter are all reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Accordingly, all of these appear to meet the requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. I get the desire to purge content that comes from seemingly impure origins, but we are here to build an encyclopedia, not a monument to our personal discernment or high standards. -- Visviva (talk) 01:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "I get the desire to purge content that comes from seemingly impure origins, but we are here to build an encyclopedia, not a monument to our personal discernment or high standards."
 * Memorable line! It needs a shortcut: WP:NOTMONUMENT? A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with you if those articles weren't clearly press release regurgitations. SportingFlyer  T · C  11:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Articles about a company hiring or releasing a subject from employment based on (fully quoted) memos or other such press releases (with extended quotes) cannot be reasonably considered substantial, independent, or significant journalistic coverage about an executive. When a big company hires an executive leader, human resources put out a press release. They would have done the same for ANY individual they hired for the position. Such articles are what the company wants said about them, much like an interview. Such reporting is more about the position and less about the individual. The press release is a function of corporate public relations and reporting of such a press release is NOT investigative journalism, it's considered WP:ROUTINE business news. BusterD (talk) 10:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete purely on WP:NOTPROMO and not-CV gounds. Come on, it doesn't even attempt to hide that it's a CV. Citation to policy... let's call it WP:DELREASON (or just WP:NOT). Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:55, 18 July 2023 (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.