Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James deaker

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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James deaker

Non notable. One google news hit and that is [probably] a PR release by the company. ("NEW YORK -- Rapt Inc., the industry-standard provider of advertising yield management solutions, today announced the formation of its Advisory Services practice."...) Shadowjams (talk) 07:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - according to WP:BIO, a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. All I can see in a Google search of Deaker is a whole bunch of Facebook and Twitter profiles. Additionally, the part about being the son of a sports broadcaster does not establish notability - see this guideline - 'notability by association' appears not to establish notability at all! JulieSpaulding (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can anyone tell me what "reserved media monetization" means? The only ghit for it is this article. He does appear to be head of "Publisher Advisory Services" (whatever that is) at Microsoft, but they employ a lot of people and there will be many heads of departments of varying degrees of notability (or otherwise). He's probably doing a good enough job - Microsoft took him over with Rapt.com and kept him - but is that notable? Hardly. Peridon (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit made to address the concerns of Peridon on use of "reserved media monetization". Included additional external references. Tried to make it clear that the claim of notoriety is based on the reputation as an expert in digital yield management. Not on his relationship to the sports broadcaster. Given that the claim of notoriety is based on being an expert in a very tightly defined space, request an opinion from an expert in the digital media space on whether this meets the threshold for notoriety prior to a deletion decision Phiman NZ (talk) 04:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Much clearer. However... I'm still not convinced of notability. BTW, I think that Phiman NZ might have made an interesting Freudian slip here. We are looking for 'notability' rather than 'notoriety', although the latter may ensure the former. In the case of someone connected with banner ads, I wonder.... Peridon (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability not established, Google lends nothing. لenna vecia 18:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2009 (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.