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 keep. Tan | 39 01:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO - non-notable fund manager. Cameron Scott (talk) 09:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is a well-known short-seller, the subject of voluminous press coverage in the 1990s and author of a book. The article requires expansion.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 11:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A well known and notable activist and author, with massive coverage in the media. The nomination seems to be based on a version of the article that was in place for less than a day, introduced by a party related to the article's subject matter. When a bio is written like an advertisement by a COI editor, it needs to be fixed, not deleted. Owen×☎ 13:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This version [1] was the actual "last good version" before the COI editor changed it into an advertisement, the point where Cameron ran across it. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The New York Times article easily proves notability. --NeilNtalk ♦ contribs 14:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:SNOW. I completely understand why Cameron Scott nominated the article, it was in awful shape, but he should have either looked at the article history or done a quick search on the author's name. The notability is pretty clearly established in the article in its current form. -- Atama頭 16:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if JohnnyB is willing to keep after it for NPOV. Cameron is probably right that the subject is now “non-notable,” as there appears to be little independent material published about him in recent years. But the subject is notable for past coverage.--Wiki-nika (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's kind of you to say that but I think that other editors need to pitch in to expand this article. It now has an "undue" tag on it and it's hard to argue that far too much of the article is focused on his regulatory issues. In fact, I believe I raised that point myself on the talk page a while ago. Lamentably, the man himself or a proxy appeared, and behaved in such a way as to make it hard to focus on content. There's a lot on his career that needs to be added. I think that the best source for that is the news articles that are out there, and not the ones cherry picked by Asensio for his website. Frankly I found dealing with this article exhausting, and would much prefer if other editors weighed in, particularly in expanding. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure how much help I will be in expansion, but I will keep this article on my watchlist for any further trouble from IPs or new accounts. I'll try to expand it if I can. -- Atama頭 23:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can only mirror JohnnyB's sentiments. When I started the article almost five years ago, I knew it would be controversial, but I didn't expect it to undergo constant total POV-based rewrites. The article has been deleted once before via OTRS action. Having to waste time on this current AfD, despite the obvious outcome, just adds to the growing feeling that editing any BLP is an exercise in futility. However, I do appreciate the effort of all those who strive to improve the article. Owen×☎ 23:30, 27 October 2009 (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.