Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Toprak

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. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Toprak[edit]

Appears to fail WP:BIO as a non-notable biography. Possible A7. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ The article needs sourcing and clean-up, but the facts stated there appear to be correct and the subject is notable. GoogleNews gives 1,250 hits for his name[1] and he is indeed frequently quoted in the press as an auto industry expert. Notable per WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Neutral. On close inspection of the ghits, the only thing they say about him personally is his name and position at Edmunds.com. While the fact that his opinion is frequently quoted may be construed as nontrivial coverage of him, it is unclear if WP:BIO was meant to apply to cases like this. Nsk92 (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find numerous times that he has been quoted, yes, but in his capacity as a spokesperson for Edmunds. It's not clear that he has ever himself been the subject of an article or even at-length interview. --Dhartung | Talk 05:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may be one of those cases where quantity transcends into quality. WP:BIO says: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." There seems to be plenty of nontrivial coverage of him, even if this coverage is not in-depth and he is not the main subject of it. Nsk92 (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've been through this with numerous journalists. Their byline shows up frequently, but they themselves aren't written about. For the case of Cyrus Farivar, who had numerous byline citations and ~~originated~~ exposed the greenlighting hoax, even Jimbo said "Even if VfD _did_ produce a consensus that this article should be deleted, then VfD is broken and should be ignored." After multiple VFDs and a DRV, though, his article was deleted. It's not an absolute precedent, but it seems to indicate that WP:V trumps WP:GHITS. --Dhartung | Talk 22:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced. Nsk92 can you please demonstrate to the rest of us where this person has received plenty of non-trivial coverage? I will make a !vote after a reasonable period of time has passed after reviewing what you have available. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 15:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my understanding of "trivial coverage" is something like a directory listing or a passing mention of the name. When someone is asked to express an expert opinion on a particular topic, that would seem to constitute non-trivial coverage of that person (this is not the same as in-depth coverage where the person himself/herself is the subject of the interview). Essentially all of the examples in [2] are of this kind. Nsk92 (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2008 (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.