Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raoul Pal

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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raoul Pal

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Total promo. Fails WP:GNG Beasteggs (talk) 09:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Beasteggs (talk) 09:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a promotional article on a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just carefully read the WP:GNG guidelines and I believe Pal is definitely notable according to those guidelines. I just added more information to the article with additional reliable secondary sources that are completely independent of the subject, to back up this assertion. A perusal of the sources clearly establishes that there is significant coverage of his role as an important voice in the world of economic and financial analysis, whose opinions are sought after, as well as the creator of an innovative source of financial information, Real Vision television. The guidelines for notability conclude that the presence of "significant,independent, reliable, secondary-source coverage" does not "guarantee" notability but does allow the "presumption" of it. Thank you for considering my viewpoint. Melinda Rawling (talk) 08:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. J 947^{'s public account} 23:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked for more and better sources, and found a lot. It seems we all agree that the sources are reliable, independent and secondary. Our dispute is what makes the coverage significant. I would like to argue that if someone is frequently mentioned in reliable sources, or is the subject of many articles in reliable sources, or is interviewed frequently, then, according to Wikipedia's standards, he is notable. Reliable sources seem interested, so shouldn't Wikipedia also be interested? I am going on the talk page to list all the sources I found, and will also try and add them to the article when relevant. It seems however, on the WP:GNG page that "Article content does not determine notability: Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." I apologize for the long quote, but I was not sure how else to bring your attention to this paragraph. Thanks so much. Melinda Rawling (talk) 06:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Looking at the current sourcing, there are lots of articles that parrot his words, there are a couple intros to quoting him about something else, and there is a half-way puff piece from Forbes. Rockphed (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - if it were better sourced, I'd include it, but right now, the article is full of claims with very poor and shallow sourcing. Bearian (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes WP:GNG. Excellent sources recently added by Melinda Rawling on September 22 from The New York Times, Forbes, etc. have put this article into good standing. Nice work! To the closer, the article has substantially changed since the sources were added. Please take that into account, in case reviewers don't bother to come back to the article and re-evaluate. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 05:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete struggles to pass WP:GNG when one considers the *significant* part of "significant coverage", it's important not to conflate frequency with significance; the former is a quantitative measure, the latter is qualitative. Being a talking head in a news program is not enough to establish notability. The point of WP:CONTN is it applies both ways, no amount of trivial, WP:PROMO additions to an article will change a subject's lack of notability. --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There is some coverage there but a substantial number of references are junk, name drops, routine coverage, headlines. I don't see a lot of depth and good secondary sources to support what's there. At least 26 could go as they are junk.scope_creep^Talk 22:26, 23 September 2019 (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.