Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Westland (2nd nomination)

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. Black Kite (talk) 00:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Westland

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

An article about the same person was deleted following a poorly-attended deletion discussion in 2010. The sources used on this version of the article do not appear to be of higher quality than the sources used earlier, but a new discussion seems more appropriate than speedy deletion as a recreation. gadfium 23:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 23:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)-gadfium 23:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Coverage is mainly either specialist interest publications or trivial mentions in major publications. I suspect there is COI as the article was created by an author who has had no other wiki involvement, particularly as the article was fully and properly created from scratch which suggests the editor has previous wiki experience under another/previous login. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG or other evidence of notability as might satisfy WP:ANYBIO. Sources offered are either WP:PRIMARY or trivial. Msnicki (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple articles including Computer World (x3), The Dominion Post, ResellerNews, Forbes. These are business papers, but he is a business person, to be expected. The question is if he is notable within the context of the project management industry. Notability is not inherited but Westland's company does seem well known, it was selected for "Red Herring Top 100 Award" for Asia Pacific for 2013 and won the "Deloitte Fast 50 Award" which means it's one of the 50 fastest growing Companies in NZ. Anyway - There is enough material in these sources to write a basic outline of Westland's career. Keep per WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several of these sources support notability for the subject's company, ProjectManager.com. But notability is not inherited and none of these sources make more than a passing mention of the subject himself except as the company spokesperson. At best, these are trivial mentions. They are simply not sufficient to establish notability. (Btw, note that to check them, I had to fix the URLs for two of them.) Msnicki (talk) 03:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and consider merge per discussion above. CEO of a notable company. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the guidelines do you rely on to indicate that being CEO of a notable company is enough to establish his notability? It is certainly not provided for in WP:ANYBIO. No matter how notable his company is, I think it still takes suitable sources to establish his notability. So far, I certainly haven't seen those sources. Just getting mentioned in a story about the company is not enough. Msnicki (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the company is notable, a combined article about this individual (the founder and CEO) and the company is the most appropriate outcome. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "merge" is always an option, I suppose. But beyond just, "In 2008, he founded ProjectManager.com", how much of this individual's resume material masquerading as an article do you think is both worth saving and not already covered in the ProjectManager.com article? Msnicki (talk) 05:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's an editing decision. Certainly some of it. Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete - per DerbyCountyinNZ - SimonLyall (talk) 08:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete, but some content should be merged with ProjectManager.com. Schwede 66 02:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability comes also from his publications, not just through being CEO. The Project Life Cycle book was (imho) an important contribution to project management texts at the time. And through founding Method123, which was (is?) an innovative tool at the time. Have added a couple of extra references today which are hopefully more substantial. TomSlade123 (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC) — TomSlade123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Both of those sources are WP:QUESTIONABLE. One was a blog post of an interview with the subject (also making it WP:PRIMARY) and the other is a press release. Neither count toward notability and both have been deleted by User:Green Cardamom. Msnicki (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In a worst case scenario this should be merged not deleted. As someone who works in the project management business, I've read Jason's books and read the odd article. Not only this, he arguably created the best online project management program, in projectmanager.com. While I agree as above that he shouldn't inherit notability, if he created it, surely thats not inheriting? With him at the helm, the company also won a number of awards. Using some common sense a founder and current CEO isn't and wasn't a cog in the machine, it was his guidance that got the notable company where it is today. Surely that counts for something? Ramelot32 (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC) — Ramelot32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Arguments based on subjective importance WP:ILIKEIT or personal familiarity with the subject WP:IKNOWIT are termed arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion. Further, notability not being inherited means that even if the subject did create a notable business or write a notable book, he cannot inherit notability from that; creating notable things doesn't make him notable according to our guidelines. What we look for here are reliable independent secondary sources that discuss the subject. So far as I can see, they don't exist. Msnicki (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As above. Neutrality^talk 15:02, 6 September 2013 (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.