Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul A. Pagnato

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. MER-C 08:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul A. Pagnato

[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)

Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Meatsgains:Paul is a well-respected businessman, entrepreneur, speaker, and now author. He has been asked by many news outlets to speak on the subject of transparency, which includes tv, radio, podcasts, newspapers, etc. He is deserving of a Wikipedia page. He certainly is notable as he has been a regular on CNBC, Fox Business, Wall Street Journal, etc. I can happily provide many more references that showcases his notoriety.Rpimpsner (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Paul is a leader in the field of transparency and a well respected contributor to many news outlets.Rpimpsner (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete What coverage is there is related to his position at work as well as a number of press releases. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. Entirely non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 19:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep:I have not provided any sources that are press releases and I have many more. I do direct you to the profile from the Wall Street Journal that highlights his accompishments. I also have links to all of the times he has been on CNBC, Fox Business and others.Rpimpsner (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rpimpsner: The whole point of Afd is to check the references in the article to determine if they support its existence per policy and see if there is more available sources, so it can be supported it for a keep. There is nothing here that is worth a keep. The subject is insufficiently notable. You have clearly not read any of the notability criteria nor WP:AFD nor any essay's associated with it. I suggest you do. scope_creep^Talk 22:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep:I am confused on how there is not enough for a keep when a quick glance at several other Wikipeida pages that are not nominated for deletion have less sources and are of people of equal or lesser notoriety. I would easily be able to provide samples of them if need be. However, just by looking at several of the sources I have already provided including a Wall Street Journal profile that goes in depth on much of what is in the written content. I have also Googled and was able to find more profiles including one from the Financial Advisor that I included as reference as well aa well as some other references that I will include in when I have the chance. I also want to refer back to the CNBC contributions including many apperances on their shows as an expert that are very easily accesable via a search on CNBC's website. Rpimpsner (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rpimpsner: Read the notability criteria. scope_creep^Talk 08:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rpimpsner: Take a look at WP:BIO and the opening sentence. I hope that helps. WP:BASIC is where its at, in regards applicability and quality of references. scope_creep^Talk 09:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:HAMMER. Until his book comes out, we are counting dancing angels on the head of a pin. There has been zero significant coverage, and arguing over which sources are reliable is a waste of our time. I would not oppose userfication. Bearian (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete significant coverage in reliable, independent, sources is simply lacking. And, while I agree with Bearian about the futility of some of this discussion, I'd just emphasise that there is a subtle but significant difference between a reliable source providing a profile of a regular contributor, and a reliable source doing a profile on someone entirely independent. A 'contributor profile' does not establish notability. Hug^syrup 10:13, 20 December 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.