Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitney Tilson (2nd nomination)


 * 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. ✗ plicit  04:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Whitney Tilson
AfDs for this article:


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

Prodded by, but was already AFD'd in 2009 and is ineligible. Their rationale was reason no. 4 from Wikipedia deletion policy - Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content - This page provides no value to the wider public as subject has not achieved anything worthwhile beyond being one of the many thousands of market pundits trying to appeal to retail investors' short-term temperaments, and so this page appears to be exclusively a marketing tool for the subject's forprofit business (or an attempt at massaging the subject's ego), and therefore not in line with Wikipedia's objectives Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Connecticut. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - based on WP:GNG and WP:NOTPROMO. The profile from CNBC is from a reliable source, but a business profile lacks independence. Financhill relays the subjects stock tips, without any significant coverage of the individual. I am not seeing any reliable, secondary, independent coverage of the subject in or outside the article. Not only does this individual not meet GNG, the article is full of what I consider to be inappropriate promotional material - such as the list of published works with external links to Amazon where one can then buy the books. These books are also not appropriate sources are they are not independent of the subject as he is the author. Case of deletion as Wikipedia is not a place for promotion, and the article cannot be salvaged due to a lack of reliable, independent sourcing demonstrating notability and verifiability. MaxnaCarter (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep He's an author and these two reviews of his books get him a pass at WP:AUTHOR. The first is a blog, but it's a blog by people who have expertise, so I think that's OK. I've checked WP:BLOGS which is more about self-published blogs, which this is not, but does direct us towards respecting blogs by subject matter experts.
 * https://blogs.cfainstitute.org/investor/2014/01/03/book-reviews-the-art-of-value-investing/
 * https://www.cnbc.com/id/30847981
 * The first AfD mentioned 580 news hit about him, it's not clear how many are primary or secondary, but that is notable. Searches of google news, google books, return high numbers of hits, including these independent pieces:
 * https://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/25/18-years-in-whitney-tilson-looks-to-his-next-50.html (imperfect, includes primary elements)
 * https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/whitney-tilson-names-cannabis-etf-favorite-pick-for-2022-but-clock-is-ticking-to-change-us-regulations-1031074824 (RfC reached no consensus on the reliability of Business Insider)
 * https://www.ft.com/content/06a84a73-5169-3b5a-90b4-ad9ca6342106 (not significant coverage)
 * https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/01/sheryl-sandberg-was-adult-in-room-of-zuckerberg-production-at-facebook.html (not significant coverage)
 * So that's two imperfect ways to say he is notable. It's not the most solid case, but the stark contrast with the first AfD being closed keep due to so many sources this one being nominated without mention of that, without justification other than PROD being refused, I find lacking. It seems to be a critique of the article, rather than an analysis of the notability of the subject and therefore at odds with the logic of AfD. CT55555 (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * He had good returns in the 2000s (when he worked with a co-partner at his Kase fund). Since the financial crisis, he has had obviously terrible returns since he had to shut down his fund and take on much less lucrative projects. All his returns by the way are confidential, and not available to any of the sources that quote him, etc and so even his good track record, shared with another of the 2000s is unverifiable. On the back of his great self-promotional effort, including a hefty ad budget spent on yahoo finance in particular, where his ads refer to him as a 'legend', 'genius', etc. he has managed to get news outlets to invite him to give his 'stock tips', etc. Obviously any article on yahoo finance itself is of dubious value, since this media outlet is conflicted. There are literally thousands of such individuals out there. While their social contribution is dubious at best, they definitely are not 'notable', except as comedy punchlines. His unique claim to fame seems to be that he knows or went to school or is friends with notable investors, but that standard is a very very low one in my view. Newtonewyork (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:AUTHOR does not appear supported, because based on what I can find, there are no sources to help show per WP:AUTHOR#3 that he has created a significant or well-known work, which needs to be demonstrated in addition to multiple reviews, or support for other WP:AUTHOR guidelines. Also, the CNBC url described above as a review is not a review - it primarily relies on quotes from him and mentions he wrote a book. I also think the WP:PROMO concern is significant here, because based on my search, there appears to be a promotional non-RS ecosystem that surrounds him, as well as sources such as a 2019 Business Insider article that relies on his quotes and lacks independence, similar to the brief quotes from him in the 2022 Business Insider article noted above. Even though the 2009 AfD closed as "No Consensus", we need more independent and reliable secondary support for WP:GNG/WP:BASIC notability, and it does not appear that any amount of editing can WP:OVERCOME the lack of notability per our guidelines and policies here. Beccaynr (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the board needs to review attentively the subsequent developments since 2009. As I previously indicated, at the time, the subject was flying high on the back of unverifiable, great investment returns delivered by his fund (a record he shared with his then partner). Since then, things have not gone well for him. Now, on the back of his self-promotion then and today, he managed to keep this wikipedia page, however it has become clear that it is exclusively used for his own self-promotion. I suspect the question at hand is: "Will Wikipedia immortalize any person claiming to have had a period of past great investment returns? Even when those returns are impossible to verify, possibly at least partly thanks to someone else and clearly a temporal anomaly if they are followed by dreadful returns over an extended period of time." Or put another way: "If I start telling everyone that I had great returns over 3-4 years, that I know a bunch of wealthy successful investors (because I went to school with them) does that mean I should get a Wikipedia page? Do the ex-girlfriends, schoolmates of all great investors need a Wikipedia page?" Newtonewyork (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per the assessments above. Oaktree b (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2022 (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.