Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine D. Wood

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine D. Wood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

"Best stock picker of 2020" is not a basis for notability, nor is being a CEO of a run-of-the-mill company in the financial space. BD2412 T 19:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: I'm very surprised by this nomination. Cathie Wood is the subject of simply colossal media coverage -- I don't care one bit about investing and even I had read a news profile about her. I'm actually worried about trying to put together a GNG argument because there's such a huge volume of coverage that picking articles to represent the whole is hard, because I'll have to leave out hundreds of sources that could satisfy GNG, so I really encourage any !voters to please scroll through the google hits rather than responding to the sources I'll list here. But as a starting place, GNG is more than covered by these 5 articles I arbitrarily pulled from just the first 2 pages of google search results: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. - Astrophobe (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Pretty clearly seems to meet the GNG, judging from Astrophobe's sources as well as many others. Perhaps the nominator searched for "Catherine D. Wood" instead of "Cathie Wood"? In any event, it looks to me like there's more than adequate coverage in reliable sources (Forbes, Barrons, Bloomberg, etc.). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per prior, and seconding Astrophobe's surprise as someone else familiar with her despite not paying attention to the relevant sphere. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG and the information and sources I've added to the article, e.g. Wood's Ark Innovation was the largest actively-managed exchange-traded fund in 2020 [1][2], and in January 2021, ARK filed plans for ARK Space Exploration ETF with the Securities and Exchange Commission to "primarily track U.S. and global companies engaged in space exploration and innovation." [3] Beccaynr (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I'd also like to note the December 28, 2020 Wikipedia Signpost Essay "Subjective Importance," which states "A common misconception about notability is that importance or uniqueness equals notability" and "The main point of the notability guideline is to provide objective criteria for inclusion rather than subjective criteria such as importance which depend on an individual's perspective on the subject." The objective criteria for inclusion appear to be met, due to the substantial coverage of Wood in independent and reliable sources over time. Beccaynr (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong speedy keep. She is mentioned in numerous news sources, like Bloomberg (interview), CNBC and many others. [1] Aude (talk) 02:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Just because someone disagrees on her position-picking ability does not mean the page should be deleted. The reality is that she is a very influential figure in the financial world right now, and as such, certainly warrants a dedicated page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:780:2B10:29FA:4CE3:21A7:5966 (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. I can't understand this discussion. Cathy Woods and als her firm Ark Invest are obviously relevant. --Afus199620 (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, she is a very notable investor, there are numerous articles in the financail press, i.e. Financial Times + Wall Street Journal about her. --Devokewater (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Cathie Woods brought sparks in ETF industry. Her firm Ark Invest manages largest ETFs. Shankargb (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She has received significant coverage in Forbes, Bloomberg, CNBC, Citywire, among others, so passes WP:GNG. Ashleyyoursmile! 13:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SIGCOV. I'm not sure where this nom comes from, especially from someone whom I respect. Bearian (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bearian:, the article has substantially improved from when I found it, but I was also piqued by it having a promotional tone and having been created by a relatively new and low-participation editor. I didn't mention these aspects in the nom because I frankly didn't feel that it stood on the assertion of notability of the subject in the first place. Stock pickers are a dime a dozen. BD2412 T 06:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is 100% right on and should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:646:E4A2:5811:4677:6728:C344 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Moved IP's comment into archive after discussion was closed since it was misplaced outside the section. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:43, 28 January 2021 (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.