Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Herzberg

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. Kurykh (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Herzberg[edit]

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

Being mentioned in High Times isn't a valid basis for WP:BIO. Conspicuous absence of normal WP bio details such as birthplace, age, education, past employment, notable acts, etc. We get scads of articles like this one created by hired guns [1], who scrape up any websites that mention the person they are paid to promote, without considering the value of that citation on their true notability. The thing about this article is, there are plenty of attorneys in this multibillion dollar [2] business. One has to stand out a bit more than being quoted in some stories or one High Times interview. And there's literally nothing showing he is an "activist". Bri (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bri (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs a NPOV cleanup, however he is clearly notable. 100+ google-news hits on him, including pre-2015. He is widely interviewed as a marijuana expert / industry activist/representative - and receives quite some coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 06:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GHITS is a textbook argument to avoid. Raw ghits and a subject's opinions being printed don't make him notable. There needs to be significant coverage addressing the topic directly and in detail, per GNG. Bri (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google-News (which is much more selective in terms of sourcing, though it does contain some dubious newspapers that need to be filtered out) Not google (which can be fairly trash). And I went over the results in a cursory fashion (including checking that they go back a few years, cover a few topics, his role in the coverage). There's plenty of fairly good references in the article itself. This guy is receiving coverage - [3][4][5][6][7][8]. Both as a subject himself and as an expert. While I might not agree with the amount of coverage Marijuana as opposed to say rubber car tires is receiving - it is a field that is in the news, and Herzberg keeps on popping up in the news - enough to meet GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 05:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

man I hate it when people spam a bunch of links with no discussion. argh. waste of other people's time. Going through them
- OC has significant discussion of him, and of Bloom and Bud
- Forbes mentions his name once. WOT but Forbes thanks you for causing me to watch their advertisement.
- OC Register about Bloom and Bud; passing mention of him. WOT.
- OC Register has a significant passage on him
- Voice of OC significant discussion, and negative at that. This is a valuable ref.
- SacBee - a little discussion but is all CRYSTALBALL about business plans. WOT.

So 3 of those are useful. I have gone through the article and removed passing-mention references that were just padding, and all the WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:PROMO and there was outright fraud as far as I could tell with the claim that his firm had raised $20M. I added the negative content that was already in one of the sources and more from the source above.

His notability is marginal and for me, in light of the promotional pressure, my !vote is just-barely delete. However if promotional pressure arises to re-pad and re-fluff this, my !vote will change to a strong delete as it is not worth the effort to maintain an article on a marginally N figure. If some other sources arise with significant discussion (not passing-mention malarky) I could !vote keep but I reckon all sources have been found by now.Jytdog (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that the Forbes reference includes the following disclaimer: The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer. in other words, it's not a staff-written article, it's a blog posting under the Forbes name. --Calton | Talk 14:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a CV in a form of a Wiki article; such content belongs on LinkedIn, not here. Sources are not sufficient to establish notability: either very local or passing mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as of now. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per comments by Jytdog and search of HighBeam that found 8 articles, mostly where he's provided a quote for the article, nothing in custom search, from Google news there are 77 hits - mostly quotes, a few mention his partnership with Roseann Barr, and a few mention businesses he opened. Not finding significant coverage for WP:GNG. Not finding a specific award, contribution, etc. for WP:BIO.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete partner at non-notable company. Does not have significant coverage either. MartinJones (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt - Classic example of WP:NOT which excludes this type of article. Additionally, fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:BIO. Article and references do not establish anything notable about the subject - plenty of lawyers earn over $1 mil. a year, plenty of people own cannabis dispensaries, plenty of people are partners at non-notable companies. No amount of sourcing or editing is going to make the subject notable.

note: This article was previously deleted on 25 February 2014 - A7: No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event): G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. CBS527^Talk 13:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the excellent leg work of Jytdog. Ifnord (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2017 (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.