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. Michig (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Leto[edit]

Frank Leto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable subject who fails WP:ANYBIO and probably WP:GNG. Subject seems to have had a successful business career (specificly in regards to becoming the CEO of a bank) but these accomplishments in no way establish encyclopedic notability. Also lacking WP:SIGCOV sources, and a good-faith search for some turned up nothing noteworthy. SamHolt6 (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination and WP:BIO - I don't see significant coverage online either, in WP:RS. Most of the article was a straight paste of his Bloomberg résumé, which I've now removed. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I added some sources, meets GNG. That the article contained copyvio is no argument for deletion.192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Granting the assumption that the subject meets GNG, can you make a case for it passing WP:BIO, which an article needs to fulfill? There seems to be no information about the article subject that is notable enough for an encyclopedia. Also, the article was nominated for deletion prior to it being cleared of copyrighted material.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to imply that WP:BIO is more stringent than WP:GNG. Is this what you mean? Because if so, first of all, I don't think it's true. Second, you seem to imply that biographies must meet the criteria in WP:BIO to be kept rather than those in WP:GNG. That I know isn't true. If a subject meets the GNG it should be kept. So to rephrase your argument so that it makes sense, you should say "Granting the assumption that the subject meets GNG, I am withdrawing my nomination."192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may need to take a closer look at my statement. Quoting directly from the text of WP:GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." That presumption is key, as I do not feel the article meets the GNG requirement for in-depth, significant-coverage providing sources. WP:BIO contains a similar caveat, stating "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." So you see, a decision in regards to inclusion is based on an interpretation of not only GNG (which is listed as the first criteria per WP:BASIC) but also any other relevant, additional policies. This is pertinent to this discussion as myself and several other editors have deputed the idea that the article in question passes either GNG or BIO due to a lack of significant sources.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to take a closer look at your own statement. You originally claimed that the article needs to satisfy WP:BIO. This is not true. It's sufficient for it to satisfy WP:GNG and it's not necessary for it to satisfy BIO. Now I don't know what you're claiming but clearly the goalposts have been moved. Anyway, the part of BIO that you quote cuts against your argument. All it says is that BIO is not dispositive. It's true that GNG is not dispositive, but meeting it is certainly sufficient for keeping an article, even if it's not necessary. In any case, myself and several editors have disputed the idea that the article in question fails to pass both GNG and BIO. That's why we're having this discussion, obviously.192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- I am the creator of this article and I agree it should be deleted.BrandingGuy13 (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citing of other similar articles is not a viable way of establishing notability per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay, it's not a policy. It's a little underhanded of you to cite it as if it were dispositive (if you're doing it on purpose). In fact, in deletion discussions noting that a lot of similar articles exist is a perfectly valid way to establish notability. If the type of article weren't notable why haven't all the others been deleted? For instance, shopping malls. These articles are never deleted, and the only argument for that outcome is that we never delete shopping malls, which is logically related to claiming that there are a lot of articles on shopping malls that haven't been deleted.192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that a discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Undisclosed conflict of interest edits by User:BrandingGuy13 regarding possible conflict of interest issues for the user BrandingGuy13. That discussion identifies this article as one of the articles that may be related to the possible conflict of interest. Another related article, Bryn Mawr Trust, has been deleted under speedy deletion criterion G11 as unambiguous advertising or promotion. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BIO and WP:GNG - sources don't establish notability. There's not much left once the Bloomberg resume is removed. SportingFlyer (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- There are multiple other resources of content and credibility outside of Bloomberg that can be added including: Yahoo Finance, SNL, and CNN Money.BrandingGuy13 (talk) 9:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Struck second vote by User:BrandingGuy13.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we strike the older !vote and assume the editor changed their mind? —BarrelProof (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Entirely non notable. Fails to assert WP:BIO scope_creep (talk) 06:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I don't see evidence of in-depth coverage of the topic by multiple independent reliable sources. I see only what looks like a press release and a couple of tangential mentions in sources that primarily discuss some other topic. The article also doesn't seem to have much to say about him. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He is head of a small, local bank. That is not enough to make someone notable, nor is being on the board of directors or any hospital.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:38, 3 March 2018 (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.