Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Pastor

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. J04n(talk page) 15:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Pastor[edit]

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

Person lacks notability WP:BIO. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I am One of Many (talk) 05:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This article was written by a spammy editor from a PR agency. I left a warning on her talk page. Rent Jungle the company this non-notable CEO founded, should also be deleted. I am a relatively new editor, so I don't know how to nominate an article for deletion, but I believe it is should be deleted as well. CitizenNeutral (talk) 05:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've nominated it for a speedy deletion, but I'm not sure if there's just enough on the page to where he would fall just short of qualifying for speedying. That aside, I did a search and while the Biz Journal did fall all over themselves to report on him, one paper isn't enough to show notability. The Pittsburgh Magazine shot is good, but it's fairly brief to where some would argue that it's trivial in nature. It's not exactly like when Forbes or the WSJ write articles saying "here are 10-30 people that we think are awesome". PM isn't a nothing magazine, but I don't know that this is really enough to push notability for him over the edge. As far as Film Annex goes, I don't really think that this qualifies as a RS as it appears to be the type of site where you contact them to get them to post content about whatever you want to say. Here's their website's basic statment: "Mission Film Annex was founded with the idea to give filmmakers and artists a free platform for self-distribution, interaction, and funding." Not exactly something that screams "reliable source". As far as the website goes, it doesn't seem to be overwhelmingly notable either. There are the same Pittsburgh Journal entries, as well as a non-notable source from Multi-Housing News and a brief, almost trivial mention in the Harvard Business Review. If there were just a little more I'd suggest a merge and redirect, but neither this man nor his website are really all that notable as far as Wikipedia goes. He or it might be one day, but for now he's only received the barest of notice from the world at large.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not speedy. I declined it on the basis that there are after all sources, and AfD is the place to evaluate them. (I also declined a speedy on Rent Jungle, for the same reason. There seem to be better sources for it--a Harvard Business Review Case. We have often considered the subjects of such cases to be notable on the basis of that source, though I am not sure we always have. But it is indeed a typical PR tactic to try to make 2 articles even in cases of borderline notability. It's of course a very poor idea, and in practice is likely to end up with both of them deleted. It shows promotional intent, and although intent is not a formal criterion for deletion, we do in practice take it into account. I might have argued otherwise a few years ago, but the flood of PR has changed my view on this. (btw, an advantage of AfD over speedy is that an unimproved re-creation, a very frequent occurrence, can be very uncontroversially deleted by speedy ), DGG ( talk ) 16:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherent and Rent Jungle already has an equally large section written about him. I see no strong evidence to suggest this should even be a redirect considering the lack of WP:SIGCOV. Mkdw ^talk 09:26, 17 February 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.