Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chad Anderson (entrepreneur)

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 merge to Space Angels Network. SpinningSpark 12:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Anderson (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Promotional page for non-notable manager. Apparently an autobiography. Almost all the references are to his website or those of his companies, or to his own writings, or are about the companies rather than the individual. DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 20:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 20:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article certainly suffers from "reference spam" to his own writings and inflates his importance. This makes assessing notability hard. I believe the Space News article is a good source. Is there a second? I'm not seeing one at the moment, but am open to persuasion. Pinging @The Herald: who accepted the artcile at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWhat about BBc times and such?? They make him notable. That was the thing which drawn my attention for reviewing it..The Herald : ping me 16:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the editing has been done by a wp:SPA; user:Chadcanderson. The Vimeo link with the BBC? Is it actually about Chad? The rest feels like wp:BOMBARD Neonchameleon (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment The BBC is his inclusion on a panel, and the Times ref. is just a mention in a general article. I have just made a good faith effort to remove promotionalism, but reverted it, as there clearly was not going to be enough left. to support an article. DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 04:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 04:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:42. Space News is not a notable publication; it appears to be some sort of industry insider news website. There does not seem to be much evidence that this businessperson has done anything to demand media attention. Bearian (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Space News is notable or not (and it is probably notable) is irrelevant. What matters is if it is a reliable source or not. A publication that has existed (in print!) since 1989 and has an editorial staff is certainly presumed to be reliable in the absence of evidence to the contrary. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Space Angels Network. After some thought, Anderson is probably not quite notable enough for an article. The Space News article is the only good source (and it is a good one); the BBC panel inclusion indicates some importance, but is not a valid source for a bio. Anderson is quoted in the press on many other occasions, but without biographical material besides "director of Space Angels Network". This indicates he is largely treated as a private figure, and has no notability aside from the company. A (very brief) bio of Anderson at the Space Angels Network page would, however, be appropriate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would accept the merge suggested, though the combined article would require considerable rewriting. DGG ( talk ) 22:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ceradon (talk • contribs) 07:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Perhaps we do have agreement for a selective merge. I'm willing to do it DGG ( talk ) 19:28, 31 December 2014 (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.