Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Albert "Tripp" Smith

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus and I don't see one forthcoming with opinions so different on the merits of the sources Star Mississippi 01:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

J. Albert "Tripp" Smith[edit]

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

J. Albert "Tripp" Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Non-notable. scope_creepTalk 17:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldMiner24: since your vote additional sourcing has been presented. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lets look at them in turn.
  • 1 This is about fund which is named after him.
    2 That is a routine annoucement of the man leaving his job. How is that notable and it is a press-release.
    the Wall Street Journal
When you search for General Atlantic, Tripp Smith to Launch Roughly $5 Billion Distressed-Investing Fund about two dozen entries come indicating its comes from a press-release with the same wording in each one. It is all affiliate links.
PR.

scope_creepTalk 19:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to think that a newspaper, tabloid or not, with 200k circulation may be worth mentioning. In relation to specifically the West Ham stuff there is also this from the Evening Standard as well. Also, the WSJ is not a press release with the exact same wording some of these stories specifically say "the Wall Street Journal reported (ex)" and it was written by one of their journalists (profile here). Also how do you know if Sky Sports is a press release? It looks like a standard wire service writeup to me and I don't see any disclosure. As for Bloomberg, the fund was named "Atlantic Park", so I don't think that the article just says that there is a fund named after him and the article about him leaving was written by a senior reporter at that outlet and in what way does it being about the subject leaving his position make any less notability-lending? GPL93 (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 20:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. After making full use of the cited sources and unraveling the article into a coherent account of his career, then searching for additional sources to fill out the biography and finding only a page at his school (the major part of which is audio, so I cannot hear it) and no extended articles about him in the financial press, I came here to say that in my estimation he just clears the notability threshhold (there is coverage of multiple points in his career: co-founding and continuing as a top-level executive at GSO as it grew; second of the 3 founders to leave; foundation of Iron Park and its participating in a major joint venture; buying into West Ham and rumors about take-over plans, and I was able to pick and choose among sources to cite at many points, but one of his co-founders has more press) but that there is almost no biographical information available: I had a rough date of birth and a high school, that was it. But then I saw the South Bend Tribune reference listed above. With that, I believe the article meets the bare minimum requirements: multiple reliable sources reporting on his career over several years, and just enough info about the person to make a useful biography. (It would be lovely if some subscription holder would check places like Fortune and the WSJ for a full profile that Google doesn't show to hoi polloi.) Yngvadottir (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The South Bend Tribune reference is PR. A man who give huge gift then reports it using PR agency is not a valid source. It fails WP:BLPPRIMARY. scope_creepTalk 08:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a PR agency-written piece, it's a staff writeup by the newspaper. If you'd like to what the actual press release regarding Smith's donation, you can find it here on Notre Dame's website. Note the differences in wording. You have continually misrepresented the referencing both in this AfD and in the article. GPL93 (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The page does not seem to meet notability requirements. Gusfriend (talk) 08:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think User:Yngvadottir's edits have improved the page enough that it's apparent (to me) the subject meets WP:NB. I will also note that the South Bend Tribune ref is far from PR; that's a respected newspaper. If this were a sponsored content puff piece, it would be labeled as such; per the paper's branded content terms, "Media Company's legally approved label for custom content work is "Story From" which will be included in articles listicles, video, infographics, promotional units, and social media." This is not a sponcon piece. The paper's source for this story also seems to be the University itself, not a PR agency. It's quite common for college town papers to report on big donations like this (Notre Dame is right next to South Bend). Lkb335 (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is the SBT article heavily based on a press release by the University? Yes, it is, it's not a very good article. Does that disqualify it as a source? I would say no. Lkb335 (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is amazing how many people are willing to rationalise something in order to achieve an objective. Lets examine the new references, the loosest definition I've seen in a long while.
  • Leaving the firm. Independent:Yes Reliable:Yes Significant coverage:No It is routine coverage of him leaving his business. That is routine coverage.
  • West Ham bought Independent:No Reliable:No Significant coverage:No A search of the term finds that many newspapers use the same exact report indicating it is sourced to a press-release.
  • Portrait on his site Independent:No Reliable:No Significant coverage:No Puff page.
  • Notre Dame 15 million gift Independent:Yes Reliable:No Significant coverage:No This is routine coverage. The statement has been made above that because it is independent even though it has been taken a press-release that it is reliable is absurd. The true aspect to prove it is routine, is that if the gift wasn't made the report wouldn't have been made. Any gift of that size in any country would have been reported on. It is not reliable coverage.
  • Merrill Lynch Takes Hedge Fund Stake Independent:No Reliable:No Significant coverage:No It states its from a press-release.
  • Founder of Blackstone credit unit to stand down Independent:Yes Reliable:No Significant coverage:No Another press-release and not about Smith. Passing mention
  • General Atlantic, Tripp Smith to Launch Roughly $5 Billion Distressed-Investing Fund Independent:Yes Reliable:Yes Significant coverage:No Passing mention

The whole consists of routine coverage, press-releases and passing mention. None of it is significant meaning WP:SECONDARY. There isn't single profile on the person. It all incidental news. scope_creepTalk 09:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is still a wild misrepresentation of referencing. Writing off references about him leaving his firm as if that is something that happens for everyone and calling an article where his name is literally in the title with multiple mentions as "passing mention" is absurd. Also, the same wording rationale is not even close. I guess staff write-ups and legitimate news wire services such as the Associated Press and Reuters (which are very commonly used in sports coverage) simply do not exist. His buying a stake in the club was clearly a newsworthy event. Call it all incidental news not leading to notability when he is the reason for multiple incidents across multiple years that are covered by reliable sources. Also, what is my or Yngvadottir's, Lkb335's "objective" here? What nefarious reasons are there for keeping an objective article where reliable sourcing has been presented? GPL93 (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone here have access to the full Wall Street Journal article? Even in the blurb available without signing in, it mentions Smith in the headline and twice in the article body and so "Passing mention" isn't an accurate summary of the source. NemesisAT (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have access through PROQUEST. I agree that it's significant coverage and is non-trivial. Additionally, there are other WSJ articles in which he is in the headline and with nontrivial coverage. See Miriam Gottfried (April 15, 2020). "Fund to Help Companies Facing Distress From the Pandemic; General Atlantic is forming a joint venture with Tripp Smith". The Wall Street Journal. p. B11.4meter4 (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. Source analysis by Scope Creep is not convincing and is a misrepresentation of the significance and quality of the sources.4meter4 (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The reference above about General Atlantic is forming a joint venture with Tripp Smith comes from a press-release. The whole thing is all driven from press-release and PR. scope_creepTalk 14:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bylined authored article in a major newspaper. Articles with named bylined journalists (in this case journalist Miriam Gottfried) are not "press releases" no matter how much you want to misconstrue them as such. This was not a pre-packaged story but one written by a WSJ staff journalist. 4meter4 (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with 4meter4 the press release argument has now been debunked by multiple editors at this point. It would appear that the nominator also believes that this article was created by a UPE, which I'm not seeing at all given they edit mostly on football-related topics and has given the incredibly plausible explanation that they created the article because Smith became an owner of West Ham United and likely reverted the redirect later on after Smith's alleged attempt to take the club over. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Referencing has been improved and article expanded, notability now established. NemesisAT (talk) 09:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I spoke to Miriam directly. It doesn't come from a press-release apparently. So that confirms it. But that is only one secondary reference. Where is the rest of them, that satisfies WP:THREE. The rest of the coverage is routine and PR. scope_creepTalk 13:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing routine about someone becoming an owner of an EPL club (The Sky Sports staff report & the Financial Times report by journalists with bylines), attempting to take control of said club, or making a $15 million donation (SBT), that's just not stuff "local man" does. Generally speaking when people, even high-ranking executives, leave their position a news outlet like Bloomberg does not have senior reporters write about it or the Financial News have an editor (which was the title the FN article author, Fareed Sahloul, had at the time according to LinkedIn) report on it. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is the most spurious argument and a complete lie. All billionares are followed by newspapers and any billionaire who runs a hedge fund are followed religiously particularly by the financial newspapers, as in this case. Most of the stuff that is reported is routine coverage that every billionare gets. So far on this there is.
  1. Secondary source written by Miriam on a partner deal.
  2. A source that is the $15million contribution. That is routine coverage.
  3. Routine coverage about leaving the job.

That is your argument. None of that constitutes the WP:THREE requirement for three secondary sources which is the usual standard at Afd, except the first one. Secondly don't speak about UPE. You have no experience of it and it makes like a fool when you say things like that. Lastly if it is the case of No Consensus then in 6 months time I will be nominating it again, until I see at least three secondary sources. scope_creepTalk 14:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do have experience dealing with UPEs and there are editors/admins that can attest to that. I am an editor with several years of history and in good standing so why would you make a personal attack like that? Your general lack of civility and assumption of good faith towards other editors has been unacceptable when it comes to this subject and you've now essentially admitted that you cannot remain impartial. GPL93 (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's calm things down a bit. Multiple editors are using language that is not necessarily appropriate for what should be a fairly routine discussion on an article--impugning someone's motive or character for suggesting deletion or keep is not acceptable in this context. Maybe it would be best if everyone just stepped away from the discussion for a day or two.
Best, Lkb335 (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lkb335 I agree. At this point, I think it's best to just drop things for now as nothing new is being added to this AfD by either of us and neither of us are going to change our interpretations of the referencing. Thank you for stepping in to diffuse things and thank you everyone for participating in this AfD. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GPL93: Sorry GPL93. I shouldn't have said that. scope_creepTalk 17:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep It's okay, we've all been there in an AfD or two. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I just wanted to clarify that there are two secondary sources written by Miriam Gottfried in the WSJ, not one. One is from February 24, 2022 (cited in the article) and the other is the April 15, 2020 article given above. Both of these are independent significant secondary sources, and demonstrate WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J._Albert_%22Tripp%22_Smith&oldid=1076991085"