The result was DELETE. SpinningSpark 17:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Close paraphrase of his web page, and promotional, and dubious notability. (I thought it close enough to be a speedy G12, but no other admin seems to have agreed in 24 hours.)
The key claim is no.17 out of 25 on the Forbes Midas list . I do not think this amounts to notability -- looking at our article, the people in the top 4 or 5 on the list seem to be generally recognized as notable enough to have articles, but not the others. The criteria for people in this profession must be either real non-PR based press coverage or major national awards. , and I think not a single one of the references amounts to independent coverage, except for #6, .privateequityonline.com, which I think routine coverage in a more general article, and the Forbes interview at #3, connected with his placement on the list. I think we need an opinion whether this is enough; if it is, then it's a matter of rewriting the article so it follows the sources less closely. I could argue either direction. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]