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 no consensus. Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Hayes Barnard (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable individual. Used to be a redirect until someone pasted this content yesterday. Couldn't find a single source that isn't a passing mention or a quote for an article on something else. He does not inherit SolarCity's notability. PK650 ( talk) 01:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 03:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 03:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 03:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete Redirect to Loanpal. II | ( t - c) 05:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep Added a few more sources to the article. Many meet WP:SIGCOV including 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 AntonNexa ( talk) 21:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep Meets GNG per above. Mallardsfan19 ( talk) 15:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete Coverage is of the companies, not the individual. Most of the links above are not RS. Subject doesn’t meet GNG or ANYBIO. Levivich  ^{dubious – discuss} 16:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• STRONG Delete: Per Nom, alternate redirect to Loanpal. I am amazed that editors don't realize and understand that WP:GNG (and WP:SIGCOV) states, If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. The first source I checked, Forbes, was the first one listed on the article and is certainly reliable. A "little" closer examination removed it completely from being "independent". The writer, David Levine, states "As the founder and CEO of Geostellar, a solar energy platform that has partnered with both SolarCity and SunRun". This means the writer acknowledges a WP:COI and very possibly would be biased. I checked the rest of the sources, and the six listed above, which led me to agree that these sources are either predominantly about the companies, or are interviews, which does not advance notability when the independence and primary source status cannot be determined. Otr500 ( talk) 20:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep - With all due respect to User:Otr500 you're conflating two separate issues here. COI applies to people posting here on Wikipedia. The article itself, on Forbes, [1] may be considered non neutral, which, given the negative tone of it, if biased, it's on the negative side of things. However, I'd like to ask you to consider your vote, given that distinction. Especially given the light that article sheds on the negative side of the sales practices it shouldn't be buried, and in fact, I wonder if any of these votes to keep are trying to whitewash the record of Mr. Bernard. Certainly, only having a page on a "newly" positive company, without looks at the past issues with those companies, presents a much more favorable historical viewpoint, and I'd think we'd prefer something that accurately reflects the "interesting" and exploitative track record of the industry, and letting it slide b/c of a technical argument strikes me wrong. 173.62.197.204 ( talk) 15:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I am astonished by the extent to which editors here are willing to distort long-established standards to press for deletion of articles whose sourcing meets GNG requirements despite those editors' belief that the subject should not be notable. Neither the GNG nor BLP policy limits Wikipedia coverage to celebrity biographies. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! ( talk) 22:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, when you recover from the astonishment, perhaps you can tell us which WP:THREE sources provide in-depth, independent, secondary coverage of the individual and not of the companies. Levivich  ^{dubious – discuss} 19:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment: There's is definitely problem with the sources. Loanpal is notable but notability isn't inherited. I'm struggling to find sources that are not passing by refs. Most of the references are related to company. Lunar Clock ( talk) 11:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep: The sources on the page should be enough for notability as required by both wp:gng and wp:basic. Frankly, I'd like to see a much more detailed article on all the solar shenanigans and the impact it had on us installers, so why are you arguing to delete, and let him avoid accountability for his role in a variety of the financial disasters. wp:sigcov “significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.” The individual has received more than trivial mentions in many of the references listed in the article with the main topics of the sources being irrelevant for the sigcov case here. per wp:basic, “if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability”. Clearly this individual has received coverage from many different independent sources, in varying contexts and not limited to just his involvement with the loan pal company. just to point out a few, among many more: [2] [3] [4] 172.249.121.208 ( talk) 19:34, 31 March 2020 (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.