Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Casnocha

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 keep. One would have to make a case it's problematically promotional or fails WP:N, since an inspection doesn't make it obvious that's the case at all. Merely asserting it makes me say "What is this person talking about?" If it can't make sense of an argument, I can't lend it much weight. Wily D 08:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Casnocha[edit]

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

Conflict of interest. I created the page, but then recalled that, since the subject of the page is an associate of mine, this likely fails to adhere to one of the guidelines (although not an official policy) for WP:Notability, and vanity pages. Davemcarlson (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:Promotion. RobHC (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I applaud you for doing this, but I do want to caution that having a conflict of interest doesn't mean that an article automatically has to be deleted, even if the content could have been promotional in tone. This isn't really all that promotional sounding, although it does need more sourcing. In any case, you might want to look into potentially userfying the page if it does end up getting deleted and getting someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Business to help you out and avoid any potential issues of COI. I haven't made up my mind either way, just saying that a conflict of interest doesn't guarantee a deletion.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 02:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain - Insufficient sourcing is certainly not a problem here but I notice that several of the news articles simply repeat the same information. Google News and Google News archives provided additional results that either repeated the same information or were small mentions. However, I lean towards keep as a result of the Businessweek achievement though keeping the article solely because of this would not be sufficient. What interested me is that it appears that he also achieved an Inc. Magazine "Entrepreneur of the Year" but this New York Times article claims otherwise. As I mentioned above, because several of the news articles mentioning the same information, I'm concerned that he hasn't achieved anything significant recently aside from Comcate and appearing at conferences and presentations. As a result of this, I am not certain what the fate of the article is. SwisterTwister talk 23:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto on the uncertainty. I had the same thoughts myself, to be honest.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: The subject does not seem to be very notable and I believe that if currenty fails WP:GNG. Thegreatgrabber (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sourcing is pretty good for this. The in-depth profile in USA Today and ABC News are quite notable, top-tier national outlets. Same with the good mention in the New York Times, book reviews in Motley Fool, the CNet article. The 2006 BusinessWeek award is also notable. These are multiple independent reliable sources that show consistent coverage in major news outlets. COI is a non-issue, the sources and content speak for themselves. Handle COI concerns through the COI Noticeboard, not AfD. If the subject of this article wants it deleted, there might be ways to do that, but it's not done through an AfD. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2012 (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.