Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shawn Baldwin

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 (NAC) RMHED 23:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Baldwin

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected

csp

|username}}.

AFD was created by IPs, I will add their rationale below. Please

WP:AGF with the rationale, but I think they have a point. tedder (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

This article was clearly written by Shawn Baldwin himself. It's all junk! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.106.170.58 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 38.106.170.58 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This article undermines the usefulness of Wikipedia. It was clearly drafted by Baldwin in an attempt to repair his damaged reputation after this dealings with FINRA. The content is all opinion and lacks any factual content. This entry is more appropriate for a Linked-In page than Wikipedia. Baldwin is not relevant in financial or politcal circles (unless a Blackberry commercial qualifies him as significant). Truly successful financiers, which Baldwin is not, do not have the need to post their own articles. I am sure the examiner at FINRA that Baldwin specifically names would have an issue with the description set forth in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.210.97.56 (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 63.210.97.56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep, but rewrite: the references already in the article demonstrate notability, but the article as it stands doesn't come close to satisfying
WP:NPOV, and needs some significant editing to make it suitable for Wikipedia. I've tagged it as such, but am unlikely to have time to work on it myself in the next few days. Scog (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

talk) 00:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete It reads like an ad for this Mr. Baldwin fellow, and that isn't what WP is. It needs improvement, badly, but I want to purge it, as it is a stain on wikipedia. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but edit:The page needs editing but Baldwin is clearly significant. Trader 999 and the various unsigned comments seem to be POV pushing their own agenda. The original author placed in references from FINRA and the SEC that were removed when other Wikipedians mentioned relevant facts. Baldwin is notable and relevant. The article should stay. Historylover9 (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Historylover9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep but rewrite:The facts are verifiable; the page needs more of an NPOB. Mr. Baldwin has significant accomplishments.Investing In Truth (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Investing In Truth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep but Edit: The page needs editing, however should remain. Baldwin's relevancy is clearly evidenced through the multiple references provided. What Baldwin has accomplished is noteworthy, therefore the article should stay.--Marketm5 (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Marketm5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep but edit: The page needs continued editing. I believe that the WK:AGF is questionable per the last undisnged post. The unsigned author thinks that Wikipedia is an personal tool for punishment. The purpose is not for airing personal grievances. Greenreader7 (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Greenreader7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment What is going on with this afd? I think it needs to be canned and started over. What's the normal course of action when things look this, err, strange? Beach drifter (talk) 04:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People vote as normal and votes that were clearly made by socks are simply ignored. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article IS junk I agree, but on its face the notability does appear to be there. Burn it down and start over. JBsupreme (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now a keeper. The slashing, burning, and regrowth have all happened, and in swift time, too. JBsupreme (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear vanity page for somebody with no indication of
WP:BLP notability. Simonm223 (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

~~'Delete Vanity article, no non-trivial source; ignore the keeps from the socks and I think the consensus is clear now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ⁽Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)~~ Keep per Cunard's rewrite, good work as always. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Back to Delete per Hoary's analysis of the sources, not enough. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)~~ Heck with it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although this discussion is filled with many sockpuppets, Shawn Baldwin is notable. See this article from WP:BIO, so this article should be kept. Cleanup and tone issues are not valid reasons for deletion. Cunard (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Addendum: I'll clean up the article within the next few days. Cunard (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up / rewritten the article. Cunard (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on: two within that list of four articles are actually the same as each other. The longest treatment I noticed was this one, which suggests that our man was, at the time of writing, a kind of faded business sleb notable for looks and one or both of incompetence and bad luck. If he's notable for having screwed up (or for having been screwed), then it's as the boss (or "CEO" or whatever's the current jargon) of a company that, rightly or wrongly, hasn't got its own article in en:WP. Famously, the lack of an article in en:WP on something article-worthy is no reason not to have an article on something less article-worthy. However, there's something odd about all of this: whether or not the article was a puff piece when it was nominated for deletion, it seems very society-pagey now. If this man was/is a businessman, readers should be told about his business; as it is now, there's more emphasis on such matters as who his fair-weather pals were. I'm not "!voting" yet but in the meantime I'll say that I'm unconvinced of his notability; further, I worry that if this survives it will be a magnet for one or other kind of BLP violation. -- Hoary (talk) 02:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the article fully establish notability. There is a lengthy article about his meeting with the
WP:BIO. The coverage in the above articles do not discuss him as having "screwed up"; these articles discuss his successes in the business world.
Yes, I know that save for the two paragraph about Baldwin's conference in Qatar, the article does not cover much about business. I am not knowledgeable enough in business to write a decent summary of his business undertakings. Using the sources mentioned in the first paragraph of this response, I ask that you aid in making the article less "society-pagey". The shortfalls of the article should not mean deletion. Everything is sourced, so the article is not a BLP violation. All BLPs are magnets for BLP violations, so that argument does not apply here. The sources provided above prove that Baldwin is notable, not marginally notable, so this article should be kept for fully passing the notability guidelines. Cunard (talk) 06:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

After having to register (which I did with a fake name), I looked at the article that comes via docstoc.com. Actually it appears to be from something titled "NV". This seems to be the business equivalent of a "society" magazine. Sample: Baldwin is now contemplating a new fund, which has [a conveniently vague verb] the three top finance professors from Harvard, Wharton and Oxford [I hadn't realized that these were rated, like pop records or tennis players]. The initial investor is one of the 50 wealthiest families in the world [etc]. Aside from this uncritically recycled and unverifiable boasting, which to me reduces the credibility of the whole thing, the article is shot through with peacocquerie ("struck an emotional chord with", "prominent", "800-year-old Oxford University's Said School of Business"). I realize that much of the "editorial" content of newspaper business pages is little more than recycled press releases, but nevertheless it might be better than this. Does it exist? (Has he been written up in the FT or WSJ or similar?) -- Hoary (talk) 06:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, he hasn't been written up in The Wall Street Journal or Financial Times.
Even if you were to discount the article on docstoc.com, what do you think about the depth and quality of the other sources I mentioned above? These articles are well-researched and are definitely not recycled press releases. Cunard (talk) 07:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They don't appear well researched to me; rather, they're gushy or uncritical or both. Still, once the flimflam has been stripped away, there might be enough remaining for the construction of an article. I'm open to persuasion. Good luck working on it. -- Hoary (talk) 07:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we must disagree on this. I can't see how the articles are "gushy". They objectively present the facts about Shawn Baldwin; they do not promote him. Generally, the vast majority of news articles from reliable news organizations attempt to be — and are successful at being — uncritical - this is the same case here. There is one article that is critical of the subject and is a reliable source that presents significant coverage about the subject. You discounted this source in your initial analysis, but I do not see what is wrong with it.
This is a valid article; the information that is currently in the article is sourced and encyclopedic. The sources clearly demonstrate notability. Cleanup/expansion issues should not be discussed at an AfD. Cunard (talk) 08:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is indeed some content in that FW article. My worry about it wasn't that it was unreliable, it was (and is) that its main point seems to be that Baldwin came a cropper. (Of course plenty of notable businessmen come a cropper and perhaps are now best remembered for this -- Robert Maxwell, the people at Enron, etc.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the article does call him "handsome", so he hasn't become a complete cropper. ;) Cunard (talk) 08:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, thanks to good work by Cunard. -- Hoary (talk) 08:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copyediting work you did on the article. By the way (even though this is not related to the AfD), what should be done when the sources contradict each other? This source says he founded Capital Management Group, while this one says he purchased Capital Management Group. ~~(I think that Capital Management Group = Capital Management Group.)~~ Both sources are from
Money Magazine, so this discrepancy is very confusing. Cunard (talk) 08:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

My help was very minor indeed; you should get the credit for resuscitating the article. ¶ Nobody seems to have disputed the claim that Baldwin ran/runs the company, so the question is of whether he founded it as well. The article now doesn't say that he founded it. I'd just bring up the question on the talk page (complete with source for the additional claim), and see if somebody knowledgable pipes up to present either additional, independent confirmatory evidence or clear evidence that he didn't. -- Hoary (talk) 14:41, 25 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shawn_Baldwin&oldid=1138761918"