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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Chanos[edit]

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

This biography is effectively a resume for a political pundit. Fails the general notability guideline: while reliable sources establish the basic facts, most of the article is original research synthesizing unreferenced information (possibly introduced by the subject), and that situation is unlikely to improve. causa sui (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm surprised I'm saying this, especially I'm usually a deletionist and this article, as presently written, is completely dreadful. The whole thing is written as shameless WP:PROMOTION. But anything that can be fixed by editing is off the table in an AfD. Here, the question is notability. From WP:DEL#CONTENT: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Clicking the Google books link instantly turns up a lot of hits that actually do talk about this guy, e.g., "His face gaunt and mournful, James Chanos is not an upbeat guy. He certainly is not a popular man in Corporate America. If Chanos is poking around a stock, it usually indicates he sees ..." I'm satisfied the guy is notable and even though this article isn't it, that an acceptable article is possible. Msnicki (talk)
Keep. The GNG pertains to the topics of articles, not the articles themselves. Chanos passes, given the NYT article and interviews with FT and Charlie Rose. I agree it's badly written. Lagrange613 (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to the first bulleted point, which reads: "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content." That is definitely not the case here. causa sui (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. That portion of the explanation of significance would apply if, for example, the NYT article talked about China-bearish investors generally, and the Wikipedia article claimed it said something about Chanos. Instead, the first three words of the NYT article are "James S. Chanos". His name or pronouns referring to him appear in most of the paragraphs. OR is not "needed to extract the content" from the NYT article. The case is even clearer with the interviews. Lagrange613 (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Trivially easy decision. Wikify it, clean it up to proper form but there's no question whatsoever that Chanos is a notable figure- pursuant to all wp:notability precepts- and warrants an entry. FactsAndHonesty (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable figure, as evidenced by multiple RS. Have just added a few more to the article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did some further cleanup, including making more neutral-toned, but does need more work. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:12, 27 September 2011 (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.