Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Borislow

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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Borislow

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

This is a person who probably meets notability requirements for inclusion, but this article has been a magnet for COI/promotional editing. I've found some sources in a Google search that establish his notability, but none of the sources on the article at present are third-party, reliable sources about this individual. I'm only advocating delete here on the grounds of blow it up and start over. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, nice. I've never heard of WP:TNT before; I like it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. Blow it up and (maybe) start over Vartanza (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:TNT is an interesting essay but it's just an essay. We need to decide on whether or not to keep this article by weighing it against WP:N. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think WP:TNT has a lot of merit, and might even be a template for what should become policy. Too much of the copyright and BLP discussions ignore common sense and [in my opinion] the law, by allowing otherwise problematic material to remain widely accessible. TNT, without knowing it probably, solves both of these problems and has definite efficiency. That said, this is not the forum to discuss that (although if you find that forum please tell me on my talk). This is a widespread product, has references, and I don't think the page as it is now is overly promotional. Shadowjams (talk) 06:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it

His first phone companies didn't really do anything notable except make money and lots of MLM companies in the 1990s used long-distance re-selling and didn't do anything interesting and that doesn't make him notable.
His horses have done well but not well enough and that doesn't make him notable.
He invented MagicJack and that is an interesting thing but if notability is not inherited and sources don't discuss him as a primary topic because of doing this thing and that doesn't make him notable.

Strike 3 you are out. 207.81.170.99 (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A successful horse breeder and inventor, this is only at Afd because it's poorly written? Come on guys. I will be rewriting this article over the next couple days. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to be clearly over the notability bar as an entrepreneur and inventor. Just because an article is written poorly has no bearing on the basic question, that of whether a subject is worthy of inclusion. Carrite (talk) 02:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- seems sufficiently notable as a company founder and partial/complete inventor of a notable telecommunications technology. Article is decently sourced, and notability is demonstrated in several of those sources. N2e (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2010 (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.