Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Ferrazzi

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 . After three relists, discussion does not appear to be any closer to consensus. (non-admin closure) Jax 0677 (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Ferrazzi[edit]

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

Go through the Talk page, this page is filled with Promotion nonsense. no doubt written by some Paid editor. The aim is to make this No-consensus and keep the article. Not even a single article about this person found where notable media covered him, all about the promotion of his work, similar to paid editing made by wikipedia contributors. Complete misuse of encyclopedia. This person is non notable for Wiki standards, article is written like some promotional profile. Wiki is not social media to promote oneself. There would be thousands people in the world like him. Ca not compromise the credibility of wikipedia on this ground. book can be best selling but does not make a person Encyclopedic notable as it stands for. If we read the article coverage, it is definitely not significant. Light2021 (talk) 05:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP That the article is written "like some promotional profile" (which perhaps it is slightly, but can be easily fixed with some cleanup) is not a rationale for deletion. Nominator should have spent a few minutes doing a cursory search for Mr. Ferrazzi, and would have quickly realised that he meets GNG. Kingoflettuce (talk) 06:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed I have done, and not found any In-depth coverage by notable media established by Wikipedia. can you elaborate your sources for coverage? Light2021 (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indeed oozes promo. Sources are poor - mentions in passing, WP:INTERVIEW. Imho fails WP:NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Kingoflettuce that the issue is more promotional cleanup than notability. I just removed content that could be borderline promotional, and tried to edit in such a way to preserve the gist and sourcing, without being promotional. Of further note, while hunting for sources, I found some info about a new company Ferrazzi founded called Yoi, in partnership with Zappos’ Tony Hsieh and Groupon’s Brad Keywell.[[1]] I'll set up a Google alert for Yoi and once there's mainstream media coverage, I'll add the info. Timtempleton (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Was just going through your profile. Several times you have found in the category of Paid editor. complete violation of Wikipedia, and clears your intention on writing about this individual without having any of the coverage proof. As there are none.Light2021 (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You must be kidding about http://wikn.co/ as a source of coverage? a blog with rank of "19,853,096"? and Google alert or partners or associate with any known individuals does not make anyone notable himself/ herself. Light2021 (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP With the promo stuff cleaned up keep. A search shows he reaches notablity.Michael614 (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please cite few notable media coverage you are referring to? and that also by wikipedia guidelines.
- Are we talking about these as In-depth and notable coverage?
- Fast Company : "Meet the Superconnectors: How the new mavens of networking are playing a different (and more generous) game."
- Forbes articles mentioned the name, such article are written everyday on Online version of Forbes " Ferrazzi believes it’s essential to “lead with generosity; lead with being of service to people. The more ‘of service’ you are, the more currency you have, and the more people will want to spend time with you.”
- Ny Times Books for purchase list?

I have not found any single source where this person has been covered for his notability and with in-depth coverage. Light2021 (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no evidence of a WP:BEFORE Google source search in the nomination, which would have shown that the topic has attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time. Article has been here since 2006. Unscintillating (talk) 06:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has several articles from many years, does not make it significant, can you please provide notable, in-depth coverage if any? Light2021 (talk) 06:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the article may be poorly written, I don't agree that it's overly promotional. Seems to be plenty of sources to show he passes WP:GNG: Irish Independent; Irish Examiner, Influencive, Forbes; Business Insider. And that’s just on pages 1 & 2 of the google search. The guy’s written for Forbes, Business Insider, Inc., Financial Times, Fortune, Huffington Post and Entrepreneur, all of which consider him an expert in his field. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Business Insider and other sources are nothing relevant as not considered notable by Wikipedia. Forbes article is nothing in depth of this person. Light2021 (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSPAM; the page exists to promote the subject's speaking gigs. Wikipedia is not a speakers' bureau. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not notable. His book was on the NYT list of the top 10 one week only, and it was the "Advice and how-to" category. I do not consider that sufficient for notability as an author. Writing for various magazines is not enough either, no matter how prestigious the magazine. Most of the refs in the article are mere announcement of lectures. The two Irish newspaer articles written above are a combination of notices and promotion. It's not enough to find articles on Google, it's necessary to see what they actually say and how they are written. Based on hundreds of afds here, very few people whose main claim is motivational speaker ar have been considered notabble, and he is not exception. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trying one last time to generate a clearer consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Any time on the NY Times list is significant, but primarily because at elast three of the cources already cited in the article seem in more than sufficient depth to pass the WP:GNG. And the find soures search reveals several others, blus at least some book sources. I don't relaly belive that a WP:BEFORE search was done here, or else everythign was jsut dismissed because marketing is this person's field, so "its all just marketing". Well there can be notable marketers, and here is one. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:37, 23 July 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.

From what I can find on the RSN, BI is a RS, be as acareful with it as you would with any other source. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]