Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Brooks (investor)

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Brooks (investor)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Non notable. scope_creep^Talk 21:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I cannot entirely agree with the statement that this is a page for advertising. I mean if I write an article about any CEO is it automatically me trying to advertise them? However, I assume the main concern is if Ben is notable. I can see your scepticism over his notability as he has not won a Nobel peace prize or anything. However, he has created a state-based stock index which is the first of its kind. He is the first to make an index based on a state which is revolutionary. Secondly, he has funded several industry top performing companies. He owns debatably the largest investment firm in the south-east. I mean he is causing waves in the industry, and I have several sources to back it up. I think you can see his notability so now I will go to the advertising issue. As you can tell when you read it that it is 100% objective at least in my opinion. However, with all this being said I respect you guys much for not just abusing power and just straight up deleting it like others. I think it's clear that this is an objective article, but if you disagree, please tell me why you think it's not, and I will change it no questions asked. Sorry if I came off as mad or rude, I would like to say I am genuinely thankful that I came across reasonable mods. signed by user:Lamarsmith15 by scope_creep^Talk 23:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lamarsmith15: That's cool, but never stated it was advertising. I really don't think he is notable and has almost no coverage. If you think he is notable, then fight to keep it. The Afd discussion will last for seven days. I signed your comment for you. Please add ~~~~ or 4 tildes after your comment and Wikipedia will replace it with your signature. scope_creep^Talk 23:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would not want to fight but rather have a sound and civilized discussion. I am not disrespecting you when I say this but creating the first ever stock index based on North Carolina and many other indexes based on other states is kind of a big deal. The index now also has a patent so it will be the sole index in these states. Nothing like this has ever been done before not just in these states but on a nationwide scale. Now the masses of both analysts and customers in several states are now following this index. Even the largest business magazine/news company in the whole state of North Carolina wrote articles about this. This alone is likely enough to be noteable but I will continue. He is also the CEO of one of the largest or largest broker-dealers in the whole southeast. This company is now worth billions. He also has funded some of the largest companies in several industries such as Wedding Wire. I believe that you may have trouble finding articles but there are plenty that I found. Way more than just what I put in my article such as https://www.wraltechwire.com/2004/06/29/southern-capitol-ventures-to-support-elon-school-of-business/ just to name one of many. I decided not to write as much so I didn't include unessecary links. Just please explain why you think he is not notable. There are plenty of sources if you look up relateable search terms. Lamarsmith15 (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I meant by fight, strongly discuss. There is no coverage for the person. There must be coverage that satisfies WP:SIGCOV. Best wishes! scope_creep^Talk 11:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is coverage for this person... a lot too. My question is what are you looking up and how. On Wikipedia alone, there are like 7 Ben Brooks. Each one of them out shadow the other in the search index, making it harder for you to find them. You also need to realize that politicians and authors have way more coverage then business owners since there whole career is dedicated to the public and they're opinion. Basically, every statement and vote that comes out of a politicians mouth becomes a new article. When it comes to authors especially Ben Brooks every single book receives tons and I mean tons of articles from the countless book reviewers and other various forms of media. All of these articles further drown out this man's articles. I mean look up ben brooks and the author is the only one that is listed on Wikipedia that can be found until the second page when it mentions the guy I'm writing about right now. I mean yea he might not be the very first link you find but the other 6 Ben Brooks's aren't either. I mean you literally said and I quote "There is no coverage". There is a significant amount of coverage for him, so much that I had to source multiple sources for certain statements said in the article. There is so much more I could have put in but decided not too since it's not from a good source or doesn't talk about him enough like the one I sent you before. But if you are really having trouble finding articles where he is the main or sole subject like the ones referenced in my article then I highly recommend you search for the ones where he is mentioned and has an important role such as these two I found on the first page https://www.techrepublic.com/article/from-textiles-to-tech-north-carolinas-journey-to-becoming-a-startup-epicenter/ and https://www.redherring.com/startups/north-carolinas-research-triange-ready-startups-go-big/. I also would like if you valued the quality of the sources given. I got the impression from Wikipedia themselves and many different editors that quality should be valued over quantity in the sense that if one has a good amount of nonbiased and very credible sources they should be valued more than one with an insane amount of noncredible and/or biased articles. Lastly, i'm not saying you do this but I would really appreciate if instead of doing anything possible to support your side whether it's by making totally incorrect and skewed statements like "there's no coverage" or just flat out lying actually try to read and take into account what I am saying and then form an opinion. PS: Who determines in the end if this article should or should not be allowed and how long will this process take? I also honestly appreciate you reading this and trying to make Wikipedia a better place. Lamarsmith15 (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both the references you provided here are merely name drops in connection to his company. They are not the kind of wide coverage that is expected to satisfy WP:V and WP:BIO. There is policy called WP:BEFORE that everybody uses before an article is sent to Afd. I would also have a look at WP:TALK so you indent or thread your comments. scope_creep^Talk

I have blocked Lamarsmith15, the creator of this article, for covert advertising (UPE). Delete as paid-for spam. MER-C 11:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work. scope_creep^Talk 19:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Need more than press releases to establish notability. There are plenty of prominent investors who have gained significant coverage to and pass GNG, Brooks just isn't one of them. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2019 (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.