Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Leupp

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. MER-C 13:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Leupp

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO: the sources are mostly a collection of self-published articles (e.g. Forbes contributor network), interviews and trivial mentions. Even the probably strongest source - the Entrepreneur.com article - contains very little biographical detail and is mostly about his company. The company itself likely fails WP:NCORP. Rentier (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Lack of WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. Edwardx (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just took a look, removed some unsubstantiated claims and poor writing. Disagree that this fails WP:SIGCOV; at worst, the company itself seems to pass WP:NCORP, so this could be turned into an article on PromoAffiliates? Did find an article in Fox News if that helps. 111.93.66.66 (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the company passes NCORP (I'm not sure it does), a new article can be created for it and this one turned into a redirect. The Fox News link is a mirror of the entrepreneur.com article that I mentioned in the nomination - not enough biographical detail. The potential notability of the company does not confer notability on the founder per WP:NOTINHERITED. Rentier (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it passes GNG. I am not much of a deletionist so I would like this kept. I think it can be improved recent edits are a pretty good start. Bottom line is, the guy seems notable enough, should be kept and improved. Elektricity (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC) — Elektricity (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability is established by very substantial coverage such as the bylined Forbes artocle entirely about this subject. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please distinguish Forbes the magazine from its "contributor network". The latter is a collection of personal blogs with no editorial oversight or fact-checking. The article contributes nothing to notability. Similarly, the entrepreneur.com article is a guest post rather than an editorially-vetted magazine article. Rentier (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of media contract to independent journalists for content. The article is not a personal blog it's a news piece. Perfectly appropriate. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These sources fall under WP:NEWSBLOG at best and WP:USERGENERATED at worst. They are not to be used for establishing notability. This was discussed many times before [1]. Forbes contributors are not generally journalists. They are ~~random~~ lightly vetted people who write personal opinion pieces. They are not generally paid for this. Rentier (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the entries you linked? The first notes established writers of blogs can be used. Thisbisnt a blog, it's an article in a business news magazine. And usergenerated applies to personal websites and such. The article author is a very well established tech contributor who's articles are perfectly legit. He clearly has expertise and is hinself a tech exec. They aren't fluff pieces but valid articles on subjects of significance such as this entrepreneur. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem unwilling to admit the difference between the magazine and the network of personal blogs by independent contributors. The author has no credentials whatsoever as a journalist, and he is not an established expert on business or technology. Rentier (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you seem unwilling to admit that the piece is a news article and not a blog entry written by an expert in the field. The truth matters. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fooey. I don't think I have ever seen forbes.com/sites used as a reliable source. RSN is full of determinations that it is unsuitable. E.g. archive 207, "the usual outcome when forbes.com/sites/ ends up here". ☆ Bri (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references here consist of unedited blog posts on various sites, rather than independent editorial content, so is neither independent nor reliable. I can find nothing better. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a businessperson affiliated with a nn entity (PromoAffiliates in this case) is almost always a GNG / WP:ANYBIO fail. This is the case here. A promotional article and a tribute page. Wikipedia is not a CV hosting service. Suggestion above that PromoAffiliates could be an article is way off the mark. The article creator is most likely a block evading sock; see: Special:Contributions/WathingMog -- a dozen or so of minor edits to get autoconfirmed (presumably) and then, boom, a 12,000-character article in a single edit. WP:DENY applies here. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2018 (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.