Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Mapley

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 03:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Mapley (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)

Insufficient notability, as it relies on self-referential sources and lacks significant independent coverage from credible publications that establish him as a prominent figure within the financial industry. Furthermore, the content primarily focuses on specific legal cases without providing comprehensive context or wider recognition that meets Wikipedia's notability. Mapsama (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mapsama (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets notability guidelines - independent coverage in reliable sources, especially in relation to international financial investigations and whistleblower activity.

Coverage and involvement include:

Mapley’s role in the collapse of the Basis Yield Alpha Fund, which invested in the Goldman Sachs Timberwolf CDO, is covered in HuffPost, The New York Times DealBook, ABC Australia, and International Business Times.

Mapley was a technical advisor to the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, contributing to its 650-page report on the 2008 subprime crisis, highlighting Goldman Sachs’ misrepresentation of structured financial products.

Further third-party coverage includes Expatica Switzerland, St Vincent Times, Further Blows Traded in EPF Fraud Case – PA Europe, and OffshoreAlert, which document his broader work in international financial investigations and asset recovery.

The article avoids promotional content and focuses on well-documented, encyclopedic facts. Legal cases are not undue weight, but part of broader public interest and regulatory investigation coverage.

This is not a case of routine mentions — Mapley is a central figure in multiple reputable sources with long-term notability — Quadtripplea (talk) 09:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Article reads like a promotional handout or a linkedin write up for someone looking for work. This reads as an extended CV. None of the sourcing used is directly about this individual, rather, about other things and simply mentions this person. I don't find sourcing either that we could use. Oaktree b (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I think this is the same person [1], but it doesn't confirm... If he's been suspended for doing illegal things, that could be notable, but without further proof, I can't confirm. I don't see criminal notability either. Oaktree b (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - if it's difficult to find reliable sources about a person, except being suspended administratively from work, that's a classic WP:BLP problem. Bearian (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2025 (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.