Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Leitz

Robert Leitz

Robert Leitz (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)

It looks like none of the sources cited are independent coverage of the subject. Mostly interviews, press releases, company profiles, and even articles written by him. So many of the links are dead that I suspect this was written by Gen AI. Additionally, I found zero hits in Swiss newspaper sources of any kind, which is quite remarkable (in a bad way). Toadspike [Talk] 19:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, Switzerland, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: I can only find sources from Business Wire, which are press releases. Source 10 in the article is the only RS and the rest aren't helpful (and #10 isn't enough for sourcing). Even on .ch websites, not much of anything comes up. Oaktree b (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Response to Article Concerns

Source Independence and Coverage

The article has been updated to address concerns about source reliability. Dead links have been removed, press releases and company-generated content have been eliminated, and independent third-party sources have been added. These now include reputable outlets such as Forbes, Australian Financial Review, IntraFish, Fundview, MOI Global, Basel Area, and Guy Spier.

Swiss Media Coverage

The limited coverage in mainstream Swiss media likely reflects the niche nature of iolite Capital and its international investment focus. As a boutique firm, its activities are more frequently covered in specialized financial and industry publications. Investments such as Bakkafrost and Jumbo Interactive have been covered in respected international outlets. Local acknowledgment is reflected in sources like Basel Area and Fundview.

AI-Generated Content Suspicion

The perception that the article may be AI-generated seems to have been driven by previously listed dead or weak sources. These have now been removed or replaced with active, verifiable, and reputable references. Itsallabout42 (talk) 07:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• How ironic that a comment that mentions a "perception that the article may be AI-generated" was itself written by AI. Delete per Oaktree. Black Kite (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  I appreciate the feedback, but would like to clarify a few points:

  Several points raised in the deletion rationale are factually incorrect:

  a) "None of the sources are independent coverage of the subject" – False. The article cites multiple independent, third-party sources including Forbes, Australian Financial Review, IntraFish, Fundview, MOI Global, and commentary by Guy Spier. These are neither affiliated with the subject nor promotional in nature.

  b) "Dead links" – Incorrect. All current references were tested and are functional. If any previous links were broken, they’ve been replaced with live, verifiable sources.

  c) "Zero hits in Swiss newspaper sources of any kind" – Misleading. While Swiss national media may not have covered the subject in depth, this reflects the niche, international nature of Robert and his firm, not a lack of notability. Additionally, there is Swiss coverage, including Basel Area Business & Innovation (a recognized regional economic development agency) and Zefix (the official Swiss commercial registry).

  d) "Only sources from Business Wire" – False. No sources from Business Wire are cited. All sources are editorial or institutional publications, not press release aggregators.

  e) "Only one source is helpful" – Subjective. At least five sources provide substantial, independent insight into the subject’s professional background and activities. These meet Wikipedia’s criteria for reliable, verifiable, secondary coverage — including Forbes, Fundview, and MOI Global. It’s not nothing.

  f) "The article was written by AI" – Mischaracterization. The article was manually written, with language refinement via AI tools due to the contributor’s non-native English. Content selection, structure, and sourcing were entirely human-led.

  Full disclosure: I am also using AI to smooth the language of this feedback given I am a non-native speaker. However, the essence of the feedback provided is clearly my own - as is the article. Itsallabout42 (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  I appreciate the feedback, but would like to clarify a few points.

  Several points raised in the deletion rationale are factually incorrect:

  • "None of the sources are independent coverage of the subject" – False. The article cites multiple independent, third-party sources including Forbes, Australian Financial Review, IntraFish, Fundview, MOI Global, and commentary by Guy Spier. These are neither affiliated with the subject nor promotional in nature.
  • "Dead links" – Incorrect. All current references were tested and are functional. If any previous links were broken, they’ve been replaced with live, verifiable sources.
  • "Zero hits in Swiss newspaper sources of any kind" – Misleading. While Swiss national media may not have covered the subject in depth, this reflects the niche, international nature of Robert and his firm, not a lack of notability. Additionally, there is Swiss coverage, including Basel Area Business & Innovation (a recognized regional economic development agency) and Zefix (the official Swiss commercial registry).
  • "Only sources from Business Wire" – False. No sources from Business Wire are cited. All sources are editorial or institutional publications, not press release aggregators.
  • "Only one source is helpful" – Subjective. At least five sources provide substantial, independent insight into the subject’s professional background and activities. These meet Wikipedia’s criteria for reliable, verifiable, secondary coverage — including Forbes, Fundview, and MOI Global. It’s not nothing.
  • "The article was written by AI" – Mischaracterization. The article was manually written, with language refinement via AI tools due to the contributor’s non-native English. Content selection, structure, and sourcing were entirely human-led.

  Full disclosure: I am also using AI to smooth the language of this feedback given I am a non-native speaker. However, the essence of the feedback provided is clearly my own - as is the article. Itsallabout42 (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  Google translate would work fine, please do not use AI. Oaktree b (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. AI-generated nonsense sourced mostly to company profiles and interviews. The only two decent sources (in Reuters and the Australian Financial Review) don't even mention him. Couldn't find anything else to suggest notability. MCE89 (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  Respectfully, your comment contains several factual errors:

  Not AI-generated nonsense – The article was manually written. Language was refined using AI tools due to my being a non-native English speaker, but the content, structure, and sources were all human-curated.

  Not “mostly company profiles and interviews” – The article cites multiple independent, third-party sources that are not affiliated with the subject, including: Forbes, Australian Financial Review, IntraFish, Fundview, Value Walk, MOI Global, Commentary by Guy Spier (a recognized value investor).

  "Nothing else to suggest notability” – The subject is the founder of an international investment firm active for over a decade, with investments and commentary cited in credible financial and industry-specific outlets. His fund is among the largest shareholders in a variety of companies and is actively engaged in shareholder activism — including public campaigns and governance reform efforts in Canada and Australia. That may not warrant a front-page profile, but it clearly crosses the notability threshold. Itsallabout42 (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  Of the six "independent, third-party sources" you mention:

  • Forbes: see WP:FORBESCON, plus this is an interview and therefore not independent of the subject
  • AFR: article doesn't mention Robert Leitz at all
  • IntraFish: no byline, probably sponsored content, also just repeats the aforementioned FORBESCON interview
  • Fundview: promotional and mostly quotes from Leitz
  • MOI Global: these are an article and a presentation by Leitz, not secondary coverage of him
  • Guy Spier: passing mention, also says that Leitz is an investor in the author's fund and is therefore not independent

  None of these meet the requirement of being significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people, which I do not see any indication that Robert Leitz meets. MCE89 (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  Respectfully, your comment contains several factual errors:

  • Not AI-generated nonsense – The article was manually written. Language was refined using AI tools due to my being a non-native English speaker, but the content, structure, and sources were all human-curated.
  • Not “mostly company profiles and interviews” – The article cites multiple independent, third-party sources that are not affiliated with the subject, including: Forbes, Australian Financial Review, IntraFish, Fundview, Value Walk, MOI Global, Commentary by Guy Spier (a recognized value investor).
  • "Nothing else to suggest notability” – The subject is the founder of an international investment firm active for over a decade, with investments and commentary cited in credible financial and industry-specific outlets. His fund is among the largest shareholders in a variety of companies and is actively engaged in shareholder activism — including public campaigns and governance reform efforts in Canada and Australia. That may not warrant a front-page profile, but it clearly crosses the notability threshold.

  Itsallabout42 (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Sluice out the AI-generated crap (courtesy of now-indeffed Itsallabout42), and there's no actual there there. No evidence that the subject meets WP:SIGCOV, obvious WP:PROMO violation is obvious. Ravenswing 21:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  That user appears to have been unblocked and is willing to learn from their mistakes. There are still concerns as mentioned above, but I would like to thank Itsallabout42 for their willingness to learn about the process. I hope they stick around and continue to edit on Wikipedia well after this discussion is closed. We always welcome new editors here with a positive attitude. Oaktree b (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as per above. I especially need to point out that the sourcing is terrible. Forbes is the poster child for formerly respected media that has gone down the drain. Bearian (talk) 00:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep: the subject may not be a household name, but RL holds a respected position within the value investing community. His body of work — including over 20 years of investment letters, case studies, and activist campaigns — demonstrates influence and sustained contribution that align with Wikipedia’s notability standards for specialized fields. Similar to WP:NACADEMIC, I believe notability here should reflect depth and impact, not just mainstream recognition.

Itsallabout24 has provided thoughtful clarification on his talk page and made constructive improvements to the article. It’s also worth noting that this AfD discussion coincides with RL’s activist campaign at Dynacor (TSX: DNG). While the timing may be coincidental, it raises legitimate questions about the objectivity behind the deletion request.

I agree the article still needs some work, particularly on sourcing, but it’s on the right track. I support retention to allow those improvements to continue. EditAndLetDie (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete This is an easy call, as noted by the earlier comments. The subsequent response was inadequate and unsatisfactory. Not notable. Delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

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.