Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yigal M. Rechtman

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. ✗plicit 23:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yigal M. Rechtman

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable person, lack of significant coverage in independent sources. Not sure if NYT wedding section is actually independent from the people whose wedding it is, but even if so, I don't think this would make him notable. (t · c) buidhe 18:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 18:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that you did not read or track the footnotes in the article.

The deletion guidelines state, inter-alia that:

"Strongly consider if an alternative deletion process (speedy deletion, or proposed deletion) should be used.

Check the deletion policy to see what things are not reasons for deletion. Consider whether you actually want the article to be merged, expanded, or cleaned up rather than deleted, and use the appropriate mechanism instead of AfD.

Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." (emphasis added)

Suffice it to say that none of these steps were taken. The article is well research, fully annotated, and is a collection of important thought sharing about auditing, technology and assurance, fraud, regulation and compliance, and risk. These are not reserved just to academics, as practicing CPAs are the basis of changes and innovation in these areas. Yigal Rechtman (me) have been at the forefront of these changes. It is not a "personal" entry as much as its a collection of processes of thought that are now making the rounds and becoming regulations and practices of various professionals. 100.8.248.104 (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this page should be deleted. Yigal is quite influential in the industry in the tri-state New York area. I think having a page is warranted and it should stay up. Djb9271 (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yigal is an award winning writer/author for the business, accounting and financial community -- as a CPA, he has tremendous expertise in forensic accounting, business valuation and in addition has other professional designations. He is on the Editorial Advisory Board of the CPA Journal, The Voice of the Profession 2603:6080:5601:3101:F154:5018:FE43:C2DB (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 18:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is no longer an orphan topic. Other topics refer to it. Rechtman (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Businesspeople. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article was written like a resume and a Google search couldn't find any SIGCOV from reliable sources. Brian O'Conner 23:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to rebut this: the published articles are all SIGCOV. They are published by Yigal Rechtman as News and Views. This is an op-ed type articles. 100.8.248.104 (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is listed under academics, but I don't see a pass of WP:NPROF via citation or other recognizable impact. The best case for GNG appears to be the wedding announcements in the NYTimes, but this seems fairly weak to me. Meanwhile, the article is in poor enough shape that WP:TNT applies. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. clearly reads like a CV and does not pass the criteria outlined in WP:NPROF. Clearly an expert in his field, he simply does not fall into the category of persons that are covered in Wikipedia. --hroest 13:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2022 (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.