Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Wohl (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please 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 as per significant consensus after prolonged discussion. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Wohl (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)

WP:TOOSOON for this 19 year old hedge fund manager (own business) and political operator. The references seem mainly primary. The previous AFD last June resulted in delete, this article is a bit different so G4 doesn't apply.Atlantic306 (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 02:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not in any sense a notable person but rather a teenager seeking publicity. I agree with the consensus expressed at the previous AfD debate. I looked at the references and calling them weak is an understatement. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note I withdraw my recommendation to delete because of improvements by Icewhiz. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It was unanimous "Delete" in the AfD 7 months ago. Pinging @Drmies, Fieari, SwisterTwister, ThePlatypusofDoom, Sir Joseph, Glane23, and Johnpacklambert:. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Things haven't changed since last time, except that he was campaign manager for a Mayoral candidate (who got 1.26% of the vote), which adds nothing to his notability. Neiltonks (talk) 10:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Very Weak Keep (but only if this balanced to NPOV and includes his lifetime ban from NFA prominently - which developed since then). First off there is quite some coverage of him since July 2016 - [1], including reputable sources: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] . Seems he is now under a lifetime ban from NFA (National futures association) which he is making various claims about, and this has generated some coverage. Quite a bit has actually changed since the last Afd.Icewhiz (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC) mod:Icewhiz (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I NPOVed the article a bit + added significant negative information (lifetime ban by NFA + cease and desist orders for fraud by Arizona) + some sources.Icewhiz (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2 - I believe the article was auto-bioed (in a very promotional manner) in Wikipedia at the end of February - to draw attention away / SEO away significant negative information that was breaking out regarding him (lifetime ban by NFA, fraud allegations leading to cease and desist orders against himself and companies). However the trigger was actually significant negative news. And this is beyond WP:BIO1E as his activities were receiving some coverage before the allegations.Icewhiz (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep With the additions made by Icewhiz, this is now a much different article than it was earlier when it was initially deleted following its first AFD. It now appears that there are enough mentions in reliable sources to satisfy notability, particularly WP:SIGCOV. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 15:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a notable person and the article will be a high maintenance article with edit warring. Not worth it. Knox490 (talk) 05:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- even with recent improvements, this is still a page on an unremarkable individual. Does not amount to notability or significance to justify an encyclopedia article. Could be draftified if desired. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with last comment for delete as the coverage is temporary at present and the notoriety is not significant Atlantic306 (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is significant in my mind for 3 reasons (and the significant coverage he's achieved as a result):

1. The teenage hedge fund manager claim.

2. The fraud allegations.

3. Most significant - the novel legal approach setting precedent in responding to regulatory oversight (in this case an SRO). He basically did not respond to any call, doorbell, etc. and claimed the agents were trespassing ("get off my lawn") + attempted to withdraw from the NFA (which claimed this was not in force until enough time elapsed). This led to him being a regular feature in Matt Levine's columns[10] - and he's a heavy hitter, with appearances here: [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] - some of these are mentions (as he as a "feature"", some in-depth. This was covered by other venues as well.

1+2 - passing though interesting in a tabloid sort of way. 3 - the precedent - probably keeps him in scope for years to come.

And finally - if this is the amount of noise he's made by 19, he'll probably keep on making noise (garnering coverage) - might as well have a balanced article as opposed to promo fluff.Icewhiz (talk) 06:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm not attempting to skew the result, but if this article stays, a whole bunch of people are going to need to keep it on their watch lists, because the SPAs etc. have been and will be edit-warring to remove the negative and replace the promo. Softlavender (talk) 03:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And if it goes - we'll have to monitor "The Wohl of Wallstreet", "Jacob <Initial> Wohl", "Jacob <middlename> Wohl", and a whole host of instafirms he's been involved with (and in each - someone will have to figure the real significance (and not the fluff)). The existing name article could be semi-protected if that's a concern.Icewhiz (talk) 05:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"And if it goes - we'll have to monitor "The Wohl of Wallstreet", "Jacob <Initial> Wohl", "Jacob <middlename> Wohl", and a whole host of instafirms he's been involved with". No, we won't. Softlavender (talk) 07:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteHe has been in the news for a couple of matters, but I do not see the quantity and quality of reliable secondary sources required to satisfy notability. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a blog for self promotion even if some negative information is added for "balance.". Edison (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In its present form (and I'm watching the page for any advert) - it far from self-promotion - as the coverage of Wohl is, umm, quite negative, an NPOV article on him (which is what this is at the moment) - even if tonewise slightly-positivish due to BLP, is still a negative - at the moment after the first line and half, the rest of the text block is quite negative. He has actually received quite a bit of coverage - and quite probably with the way things are developing will receive quite some more.Icewhiz (talk) 11:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete being a hedge fund manager does not make one notable, nor does being the campaign manager for a candidate who recieved less than 2% of the vote.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Found nothing notable about him. References seems to be PR stuffs. Merely self promotion --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 22 references in the current article, 12 are highly negative (due to his ban from NFA and other questionable practices). Wohl has definitely been pumping the PR machine - but that is not the case in the current article - as most coverage in reliable sources has shifted from the initial coverage of him being a "17 year old hedge fund manager" to his actual business practices.Icewhiz (talk) 06:03, 23 April 2017 (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.