Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Goodwyn

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. Sandstein 10:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Goodwyn[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Entirely promotional . Itried to clean it, but there would be nothing left after removing the puffery and the minor awards. Every references is either an interview where he says what ever he wishes to say, or a mere notice. Most of the article was written by an ip editor geolocated to his company. DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 22:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. Normally, I would vote keep based on sources such as these: [1], [2], [3]. But having just read DGG's comments here (permalink), I sense the concern is the WP:PROMO rather than sources, and I see that as a good reason to take this article off-line. I also notice in articles like these the secondary sources probably got a press release and used that as the basis for their articles, so the reporting is not entirely unbiased. At the same time, the fact that the secondary sources chose to cover him and/or the org he is with suggests notability. I'm open to reconsidering based on what others have to say about this and any other prominent secondary sources I might have missed. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Goodwyn is a notable executive in his industry as noted by the types and quantity of secondary sources covering him. Trimmed down more WP:PROMO material. Trimmed down WP:PROMO copy in introduction. Bebenitwit (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1)regardless of notability this is a promotional Cv and should be deleted on that ground-perhaps I should have used G11. The "trimmed down promotional materials" still has the article beginning: "with over 30 years of experience in building and leading high-performance organizations that disrupt existing markets and create long-cycle stakeholder and shareholder value."

2)that secondary sources "choose" to cover a person is a tribute to their PR advisors, not an indication of anything notable about themselves. As one of the declared PR people at WP told me some years ago, this is the key role of the profession. Editors need stories. They take what is at hand. The PR people make sure their client's puffery is at hand. As mentioned above, the simialrity of the accounts in the various sources is clear evidence of this.

3)Looking at the claims made in the article. The second section at most shown "may be notable some day" -- the awards are minor. or for "next generation" (an euphemism just as much as the notorious "young leaders"--it's equivalent is the junior varsity. The entire third section is membership on various philanthropic boards. One attains this status by giving them money. Being chairman of the board for a major national philanthropy is perhaps notable, being member of a board of a local foundation is not. Even for the one major institution represented, his role is third-rate.: He is not a member of the UNC board, he's a member of " UNC Chapel Hill Chancellors Philanthropic Council"--the name makes it clear that its purely a fund-raising group. A DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. WP:PRIMARY sources are generally no good. Please read through WP:RS to learn what are good sources on Wikipedia. Something like this is no good, and is little more than original research. Many of the articles content based on such sources would have to go. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 15:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional article about a non-notable individual. Please note that user Bebenitwit, an account just established for disputing this nomination, is likely a sock of the article creator, user Dancing52734, and both are likely undisclosed CoI editors. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly a piece written by UPE to promote the subject. Fails WP:PROMO based on the puffery and WP:GNG based on the almost entirely primary sources and non-notable awards. The possible socking at this AfD is also concerning. Waggie (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2018 (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.