Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Storch

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Adam Storch}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adam_Storch Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Adam Storch}})

No SIGCOV. Notable for only one event - being appointed to SEC after working at Goldman Sachs - and covered in a total of two sec.gov press releases (one on hiring, one on leaving), one Bloomberg piece, a Business Insider piece referencing the Bloomberg piece, and a Business Insider piece mentioning his now deleted photo. Also note, it was created by an editor with only three other edits, two of which where immediately reverted. Hydromania (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hydromania (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Hydromania (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Serving on the SEC could certainly count as a notability claim if he could be referenced over WP:GNG for it, but it is not an "inherent" notability freebie that guarantees him an article just because his role is technically verifiable. Nominator is correct, however, that the sources here are not adequate to get him over GNG: two of the four are the SEC's own self-published press releases; the Bloomberg piece reads like a thinly veiled rewrite of the press release rather than anything that resembles a journalist actually talking to anybody personally, and the Business Insider piece is just a snarky blurb about their efforts to find a photo of him — any piece that contains the all-caps phrase "A VAMPIRE SQUID IS RUNNING THE SEC" is not substantive enough to take seriously as a notability-making source. If somebody could do a lot better than this, then things might be different — but this, as written, is not even close to enough. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - two press releases and two gossipy "who's moving on" articles are not WP:SIGCOV, and his position is not high up enough to warrant automatic inclusion per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. No SIGCOV. Notable for only one event. --SalmanZ (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• Delete a government functionary below the level of default notability and not enough coverage otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.