Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joël André Ornstein

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 no consensus. Sandstein 17:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joël André Ornstein

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

I'm not quite sure what this guy's claim to notability is supposed to be. Being really rich, but not that rich? Writing a thesis? Sitting on some boards? It's not clear. Anyway, there's a distinct lack of independent sources; the only significant coverage of him is a piece in an alumni magazine's class notes section, which is not exactly an objective resource. Also, this is written by a single-purpose account, a bit of a red flag. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the article. This is the first Wikipedia article that I have submitted so I will agree with Biruitorul that there was some relevant info missing. However, this was not intentional, this was due to lack of experience. I have gone through fixed links, added more external links and information to the article/bio. I do think that it would be more constructive for Biruitorul to give constructive criticism and suggestions rather than making comments of "claim to notability" and "being really rich". If there is anything that I can do to improve the article than I am happy for input. MajornCorp 207.181.243.85 (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question at hand is what makes Ornstein notable, what are his claims to notability? You may wish to read through WP:N before answering that. If you want this article kept, you should try to demonstrate how he meets the criteria set out by WP:GNG (i.e., that he has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject) and/or WP:BIO.

I wasn't trying to be dismissive but yes, currently the only claim about the subject I can see is that he's had a career making a lot of money. That's nice, but it isn't necessarily enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia - not with the rather dismal level of sourcing now present. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be greatly appreciated if you would help and give specific constructive advise rather than comments about how much money you think he has made, which I have never made reference to. My focus is on his professional achievements, background and education. I spent hours yesterday working on the article to improve it and will continue to do so over the weekend to bring it up to Wikipedia standards. I am very open to any input that helps me to improve the article. Especially as this is my first one on Wikipedia and I know that as I am learning I will make some mistakes. Thank you. MajornCorp 207.181.243.85 (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between having had a successful career involving "professional achievements, background and education" (he's done that) and being notable enough for inclusion into an encyclopedia (I don't think he's done that). Like I said, if you can demonstrate how he fits the criteria of WP:GNG and/or WP:BIO, then it's likely the article will be kept. I've contended it doesn't pass that bar because what we have are an article in an alumni magazine (which hardly counts as independent coverage) supplemented by some journal articles/theses which don't demonstrate notability one way or the other. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise what is needed to either remove the deletion notation from the article or to delete it entirely. I have updated the article, adjusted links, etc. I have nothing more to add to the article. Thank you. MajornCorpMajornCorp (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's hard judging notability of people in this business unless they're the sort who go actively looking for publicity, or find themselves at the receiving end of unwanted publicity. But as a proxy, I am willing to accept the multiple board membership as an indication that those in the business world think him notable. The ones on corporate boards might conceivably because of his financial clout, or in virtue of his firms' investments, but that wouldn't account for the Sloan. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 13 March 2013 (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.