Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Sebag (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 no consensus. There is significant coverage in several sources including NYT, Globes, and Reuters. The question is whether those sources can be considered secondary. They're not exactly interviews, but in many parts they quote Sebag in the context of a broader article. As such, I don't believe it has been conclusively determined whether the subject meets WP:GNG. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Sebag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BEFORE and WP:BIO. No standalone, secondary sources are available. scope_creep^Talk 15:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable financier.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Subject is undoubtedly notable and meets Wp:GNG. In just the past year, subject has been covered by Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times. There are at least a dozen other notable mentions, patent filings, and citations associated with the subject which meet Wikipedia guidelines. Subject is the founder and CEO of two listed public companies and was profiled by the New York Times for his art collection and WSJ/Bloomberg for his being one of the key participants in the global precious metal industry. If the entry needs to be improved, I suggest that be done. Finally, I query the impetus by the nominating member to delete the article one year after he actively edited the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by TypoFact (talk • contribs) 15:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to administrator The above person is a WP:SPA. scope_creep^Talk 16:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Lets examine the references, thirteen in total. WP:THREE at least should show that the first three references should prove notability:

Ref 1. The reference is primary, More than 80% of which is about Bitfarms. Primary references can't be used to prove notability.

Ref 2. This is a profile, which most of it, discusses his company. It is mostly primary.

Ref 3. Is a press release and can't be used to establish notability.

Ref 4. Is a company listing profile for the company shares. It is primary and not about Sebag.

Ref 5. 90% of the articles talks about his company. Primary again.

Ref 6. Single comment by Sebag. It is primary. Primary references can't be used to prove notability.

Ref 7. It is a blog. Per WP:NOT. Can't be used to establish.

Ref 8. Monies raised. Fails WP:NCORP. Is it not a business article.

I'm not going to do any more. The first three references don't prove anything, apart from company news, which can't prove notability. All the are primary, profiles, or mostly about company news. There is not a single WP:SECONDARY source that can be used to establish notability per WP:BIO and WP:V. scope_creep^Talk 16:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to Administrator The above person has just sought to revert improvements I have made to the article which meet WP:BIO, WP:GNG and WP:THREE. After responding with a Keep vote, I thought it would be best to add these sources myself. By seeking to undue my additions, Scope Creep is preventing the article from being improved as well as the claims of notability. I am not sure what’s going on here but it seems Scope Creep is not reading the same articles I am nor is he impartially analyzing their contents. I am an occasional wikipedia editor from Ontario, Canada and am also a junior resource investor. In the precious metals industry Roy Sebag is one of the most notable players, certainly for his age. In my edits, which scope creep sought to revert, I added another New York Times article about a company Mr. Sebag founded, a CNBC video interview (CNBC invites guests for their views on the world and markets not for self promotion), and a Bloomberg piece entirely focused on Mr. Sebag’s activity in the cryptocurrency space. 5 notable sources were added to improve the article and thence removed by Scope Creep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TypoFact (talk • contribs) 15:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a failure of WP:GNG. JavaHurricane 15:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fluff article for a non-notable subject. Sulfurboy (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it meets WP:GNG, WP:THREE and commentators must look to the previous articles for deletion nomination and see the Keep arguments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedia1995 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin The previous editor is another WP:SPA. Not a single WP:SECONDARY reference has been added to the article, that can be used to verify WP:V, nevermind WP:BIO. This reference added by the SPA is an affiliate, interview style, primary ref and can't be used to establish notability. scope_creep^Talk 22:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I was notified about this discussion on my talk page, having earlier voted keep in the last no consensus AfD nomination. My earlier keep vote was that there's enough coverage to pass WP:GNG, between the multiple companies that have gotten coverage, his investment activities and his patents (which seems to have disappeared - but I'm not going to spend time looking for it.) I did some more cleanup and added some more recent coverage. The broad coverage that's there discusses his roles in different companies. The sources I like include Bloomberg (not a primary source) [[1]], The New York Times [[2]], The New York Post [[3]], CNBC [[4]], the US version of Israeli business paper Globes [[5]] and Reuters [[6]]. I think he just passes notability. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.