Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Katchen

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. Consensus that while there are interviews and details from Katchen, there are insufficient sources about him (as opposed to his company) in order to demonstrate notability. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Katchen

[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)

WP:BLP of an entrepreneur, not referenced to sufficient reliable source coverage about him to get him over WP:GNG. As always, every CEO of a company is not automatically notable enough for a standalone BLP just because the company has one -- the key to whether he gets a standalone biographical article, or just has his name mentioned in the company's article without linking to a separate biography of him, hinges on the degree to which he is or isn't the subject of reliable source coverage about him.
But four of the seven references here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all (a self-published essay about himself written in the first person on his company's own website, the alumni association of his own alma mater, and a speaker's profile on the corporate website of a speaker's bureau he's directly affiliated with) -- and of the three sources that are actually from real media outlets, two of them are Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself or other things in the first person. But while Q&A interviews can be used for supplementary sourcing of stray facts in an article that has already cleared GNG on stronger sources, they cannot bring the GNG in and of themselves -- a person does not get over GNG by being the author or speaker of content about other things, he gets over GNG by being the subject of content written by other people.
So there's only one source here that actually meets all of the necessary conditions (i.e. written in the third person by a journalist for a real media outlet), and that's not enough. Bearcat (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with the nominator. A WP:BEFORE, found the same types of sources, not WP:IS or not WP:RS either as the speaker/interviews. Fails WP:GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A google search shows numerous RS: CNBC Financial Post Globe and Mail Bloomberg Forbes Toronto Life.

Also the Nom's claim " But while Q&A interviews can be used for supplementary sourcing of stray facts in an article that has already cleared GNG on stronger sources, they cannot bring the GNG in and of themselves -- a person does not get over GNG by being the author or speaker of content about other things, he gets over GNG by being the subject of content written by other people" is not in any policy I can find. These articles count for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Affied (talk • contribs) 17:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Interviews are generally considered primary sources (see WP:NOR#defs, bullet point C), and it's pretty general convention that assertions of notability require secondary sources to confirm. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further input on the relevance and quality of the sources provided would help us determine a consensus about exactly whether he does pass the notability guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca ^talk 00:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another no-N WP:RESUME article; all the attempted Keep sources are anything anyone who has a financial degree can be called on to say to meet some publication's certain POV. Nate • (chatter) 02:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:- I think the article has enough notable coverage to has a stand alone wikipedia profile. Indeed the article needs a lot of improvement we need more secondary sources and for this reason I have added two new sources but I don't think deletion of this article a solution. ABCDE22 (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (Bearcat) and CASSIOPEIA. All sources in the article are either non-qualifying non-reliable sources or non-independent sources that are independent of the subject. Any mentions to Michael Katchen are to him in his role as CEO of Wealthsimple, not to and about him as a person. Thus, he's only mentioned in a tangential way and, in turn, fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG, and WP:NBIO. Doug Mehus T·C 16:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nominator explained in detail. I agree with him. - The9Man | (talk) 10:24, 4 March 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.