Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephan Pouyat


 * 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__. As a regular closer, sometimes discussions have to run for two or three weeks before consensus becomes clear. It is very hard to recreate an article that has been deleted through an AFD so it's important that a closer sees a consensus that goes beyond the nominator's statement before deciding to delete a main space article. Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Stephan Pouyat

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

Fails WP:BIO. Coverage is self-generated profiles and passing mentions. Fails WP:SIGCOV.  scope_creep Talk  18:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Keep [], [] and [] are enough to establish notability. Been as a senator at European Union is also key tool to establish notability. 102.91.54.72 (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Finance,  and France. Owen&times;  &#9742;  19:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Those are all passing mentions, not significant coverage. As for him being a senator (I don't think the EU has a senate), I found this, where he's described as the Senator for EU of a business group. Squeakachu (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The EU has Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), quite a lot of them, actually. There are no senators that I know of. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment Yes, that are all passing mentions which makes them "Not independent" and not reliable sources.   scope_creep Talk  16:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I was planning to go through the first block of reference but it is so chronically bad, I'm not going to bother. If anybody has any references, per the best-practice WP:THREE, post at least three WP:SECONDARY references on the subject.   scope_creep Talk  16:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: However the subject seems notable, only needs few more independent resources. LKBT (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This editor is a WP:SPA who has no concept of Wikipedia notabilty policies.  scope_creep Talk  23:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources per WP:THREE to show he is notable?   scope_creep Talk  13:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep It passes GNG DXdy FX (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This editor is a WP:SPA.  scope_creep Talk  23:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment Does anybody have WP:THREE WP:SECONDARY references that prove the subject is notable? I've not seen any evidence that he is notable. They are WP:SPA coming and nothing being offered.   scope_creep Talk  23:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , &  per above IP is enough to establish notability. I think you don’t need to stress it. DXdy FX (talk) 07:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ref 4 above is an event listing and is non-rs.
 * Ref 5 "Stephan Pouyat, global head of capital markets and fund services at Euroclear, said the deal would help Egypt achieve its goal of reaching a wider" is a passing mention and is WP:PRIMARY and is not in-depth.
 * Ref 6 "However, Stephan Pouyat, Euroclear's head of product management global reach, says the bank.." This is another passing mention, is no indepth and WP:PRIMARY. Not a single one of these are valid so far.   scope_creep Talk  08:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: No consensus for keep or delete. Relisting. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. None of the references advanced by the keep !voters are even close to WP:GNG-qualifying coverage. If that's the best we have, he's not notable. -- asilvering (talk) 05:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete: EN coverage is all PR items. A French search turns up not much else, most are mentions of the Euroclear company/business, could perhaps redirect there. I don't see extensive (or much of any kind) of coverage for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep It pass notability of a living person because he/she has been featured in Reuter, and Instutional of Investors 102.91.52.156 (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This editor is a WP:SPA.   scope_creep Talk  17:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete (with possible redirect to Euroclear). Refs fail WP:SIGCOV. Subject is obviously successful in his field, but not yet WP:N.-- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no way a person will fail GNG and become successful. It should either be successful and pass GNG or unsuccessful and fail GNG Your vote seems to be controversial 102.91.46.92 (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is nonsense. A person's level of success is not tied to whether or not they can pass WP:GNG, or vice-versa. -- asilvering (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment What a truly stupid argument from another WP:SPA, just arrived this second. By that definition, the whole world would be on here. So far in the three weeks this Afd has been open, not a single piece of evidence has been presented that shows the individual is notable. Not one valid WP:SECONDARY reference that satisfies WP:BIO. . I also don't understand why this is still open, despite the complete lack evidence of notability.   scope_creep Talk  08:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Unable to locate anything more than PR. The person being a CEO is not enough, he is far away from the notability. Lordofhunter (talk) 09:54, 18 February 2024 (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.