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 23:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leerom Segal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Most of the sources for Segal are either self published/unreliable/press releases or otherwise affiliated. 40 under 40 awards are generally pretty lackluster in establishing notability because many, many orgs and "magazines" give these out, so they aren't suitable on their own. Before gutting it, it was just straight up PR gibberish as well. PICKLEDICAE🥒 19:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Israel, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Source 4 is minimal coverage in a RS. Source 10 is a RS. I can't pull up source 17. Sources 7 and 9 are listed as RS, but about the company. I can't find mentions of this person otherwise. Almost at notability but not yet. Oaktree b (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: In addition to Fast Company, independent reliable sources include a Globe and Mail profile, The Jerusalem Post, Toronto Star, Chicago Tribune, and coverage of his interview with President Barack Obama. Awards and appointments received include Ernst and Young Entrepreneur of the Year, PharmaVoice Red Jacket Award, MM&M Agency Marketer of the Year, and he was named to the Google Health Advisory Board, which are all significant for his field. I've prepared a clean user sandbox draft version, which is more focused and only uses acceptable sources. Because of my acknowledged Conflict of Interest, I kindly request commenters in this discussion review this less problematic, better sourced version. Thank you for your edits and recommendations. Marisa at Klick (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Oaktree b, did you see the additional sources I provided? Cheers, Marisa at Klick (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, a 40 under 40 list in the Globe and Mail, a Toronto Star article that only briefly mentions him, rest are trivial or PR press.Chicago Tribune is him talking about something else, the article isn't about him. Fast company is a photo of his speaking iwth a lady on a stool and perhaps two paragraphs, not extensive coverage and at all. None are useful. Oaktree b (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Interviewing Obama doesn't prove he's notable, Obama speaks with hundreds of people yearly. Oaktree b (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd go as far to say in the thousands, given who he is. PICKLEDICAE🥒 19:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gidonb, are you looking at the full rewrite in my user sandbox? Thank you, Marisa at Klick (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did. It's a businessman with a career slightly in the public eye. There is space between that and encyclopedic notability. gidonb (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors please review newly located sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even with the new sources, it's still !delete for me. Oaktree b (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While there is some coverage, notability seems not fully reached. gidonb (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if more sources can be brought up that are not just self publishing then it shouldn't warrant deletion. However if this is not met then perhaps deletion is indeed warranted. On the whole I'm learning more towards Delete. If proper sources are brought and notability better proved then I'll switch to Keep. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Considering that it doesn't seem to have sufficient sources to prove its notability, then it is hard to be kept, unless with adding more related sources. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 12:33, 26 November 2023 (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.