Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Strietzel

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Strietzel[edit]

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

He has patents. There is no information given on whether they have actually been exploited. If they have, then he might be notable, even though the article is written by an extremely prolific apparently paid editor. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi User:DGG, I looked at this article and did a bunch of clean up to see what was real. I found that some of the text was unsourced or made claims not supported by the citations. So I cleaned it up and everything is tight now. What is left is an article that rests on primary sources such as college yearbook, company website and a dozen patent listings. However, there are a few secondary sources there too and one of them describes a lawsuit with big name companies over a patented feature that Strietzel invented and then sold. The source, which is an industry news site is here. The source says: "The two telecommunications patents Curry is asserting against cell providers were both invented in 2000 by Jonathan Streitzel, a tech entrepreneur in Long Beach, Calif. and co-founder of new media company BigStage.com. Strietzel’s CrunchBase profile notes he is"credited as one of the early inventors of ‘Ring-Tone’ advertising on mobile phones and was a very early inventor and thinker in cloud computing/storage of media online" Also, if this article was created by a paid editor, he should be fired as there are better sources for his BLP such as: BusinessWeek, CBS News 1, CBS News 2, Bloomberg, Forbes 1, Forbes 2. Most of these sources are passing mentions but there is also an interview and a feature article contained within them. So this person is more notable then we thought. Comments?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rename Big Stage and revamp. The company he co-founded has gotten some press from Forbes, CBS Money Watch and CNET. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Cruchbase profiles and his own company's blurbs are not reliable sources about his accomplishments. The patent summaries do not refer to ringtones, but personalized advertisements. I wonder if the patents do at all, or whether that is a unjustified claim by the non-inventor suing for infringement of the patents he bought from Strietzel. There might be some point in an article about the company. If so, it should start from scratch. DGG ( talk ) 16:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral-- I think someone could make a case for this to squeak by as a keep but it would be a squeak as notability is somewhat questionable even with the sources I've provided. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even after the editing to make "everything ... tight now" (whatever that means), there are no suitable independent reliable sources. There is a page that merely includes his name in a list, a report in a a student newspaper at a college he once attended, copies of patent filings, a page on a blog that mentions him, etc etc, but nothing that verifies notability by Wikipedia's standards. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:00, 7 November 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.