James Richman : There are no publications in the Latvian language (he was supposedly born in Latvia), several Latvian community members did some research and found nothing.  Džeims could be a proper (but rare) Latvian name, Ricmens is not a Latvian surname and to me just sounds like a prank — "Rich man".  Almost all of the sources used in the article do not seem reliable.  No prominent media have reported on him.  Even if this person is real and a billionaire he should not be notable here as there are no reputable third-party publications about him.  Deletion discussion already started on Polish Wikipedia.  Papuass ( talk ) 08:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header.   Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.  — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 08:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions .  Papuass ( talk ) 08:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : This is kind of fascinating.  I did some basic research: of the sources in the article, one doesn't mention Richman at all, and two are dead links.  The most reliable source is probably Yahoo Finance, but all other sources are somewhat obscure, and some are scrapers.  An online search also doesn't bring up any sources such as the Financial Times, The Economist etc. mentioning Richman.  Of course there's not specific requirement for any of these sources to mention him, but you would think that this guy would come up at least once in any of these established sources.  Furthermore, there's the website of JJ Richman, Richman's supposed company.  It's pretty bare bones.  Of course having a fancy website is also not a requirement for having a Wikipedia article, but you'd think that with "teams across the globe", they would list their staff or something, anything.  Lastly, pictures of the supposed James Richman.  There's a bunch , and they are mostly photoshopped images of some bloke with shades.  Maybe that's the actually existing James Richman, but again, you would think there would be at least one normal picture of this guy somewhere that doesn't look like a YouTube thumbnail.  Cortador ( talk ) 09:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Yahoo Finance story comes from "Insider Monkey".  I am not sure what kind of company they are and what is their reporting quality.  JJ Richman exists on Linkedin , but user form Polish Wikipedia could not find it in registry of Singaporian companies where it is supposed to be registered.  Papuass ( talk ) 10:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Good catch.  I assessed the sources the article uses , and it's mostly sources making claims that, mysteriously, aren't mentioned anywhere else e.g. Richman being the richest European and possibly the second-richest man in the world.  Articles also commonly link to news aggregators, which speaks for the quality of their editing process.  I also checked the UK's company register, and while there are a couple of companies called "Richman", none is called "JJ Richman", and they are all dissolved or a different kind of business.  My current impression is that "James Richman" is a guy who photoshopped a few selfies and got the attention of some low-quality news sources.  But even that speculation aside, the source situation is in my opinion dire enough to warrant deletion.  Cortador ( talk ) 10:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The photographs I found in articles and a Youtube video are all in only a few poses (with a different background).  So that might as well be AI generated photos.  So the person might not even exists or it might a model/actor that posed for one photo shoot.  Might not be related to those using the "Richman" name (which BTW sounds like a comics character Richie Rich ).  As for sources: note that I already removed some fake information.  Some sources are clearly fabricated so someone took effort to fabricate information.  The main example I'm very sure is fabricate is the one about investment in a 3-D printed heart.  3-D printed heart was a real invention, but Richman was not acknowledged in the paper about the heart .  See also: Removed, falsified information .  I see Cortador already added some more info on sources curently in the article on Talk:James_Richman .  Nux ( talk ) 12:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine , Technology ,  and Latvia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : The author was  'a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit.'  Xx236 ( talk ) 12:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I reviewed some sources on plwiki and some things on enwiki.  Already removed some of the information that I'm quite sure was falsified (meaning other sources that should confirm an investment do not say anything about Richman nor JJ Richman company).  I was also unable to find any source that confirm registration of JJ Richman company which supposed to be stationed in Singapure.  Unless I'm missing something, JJ Richman company is very likely to be a scam.  Wikipedia is most probably intended to boost credibility of the company that probably doesn't even exists or doesn't have the money and abilities they say they do.  Yes, I'm aware the this is a big accusation.  Even if the company and the person exists it is definitely not as influential as the initial article suggested.  So the article should be removed.  -- Nux ( talk ) 12:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I agree that this is likely at best a prank and at worst a scam, but even if it wasn't, the bottom-tier sourcing justifies a deletion on an article about this supposed major investor that no reliable sources mentions, ever.  Cortador ( talk ) 14:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : As nominator.  -- Papuass ( talk ) 13:48, 1 December 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.

Discussion outcome: delete