Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Gross

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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Gross[edit]

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

Not finding enough in the article or in online searches to meet WP:GNG. Famous father, but WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Meets GNG. See this OC Weekly article on his current band, not presently cited in the article. Also this Gawker article on Gross, also not currently cited in the article. Plus the stuff that is cited in the article, e.g. the Billboard piece. This is enough coverage, clearly. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete actually, there clearly isn't enough coverage, at least independent coverage. The first two articles are written by Gross himself, and the Gawker article is merely reporting on a Bloomberg article (archived here) which is just an interview with Gross plugging his STRZ Enterprises company, so all of these can be discounted as primary sources, as well as the links to STRZ Enterprises and FYG Foundation websites. The Businesswire and Venturebeat articles are press releases that only mention Gross in passing as an investor in a start-up, which doesn't demonstrate notability. The Billboard article is reliable and independent, but it doesn't show that Gross is individually notable, only that his band might be. Everything else is local coverage and/or inherited notability of his famous father or two non-notable bands that Gross has been in. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Richard3120 (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable as either musician, entrepreneur, or philanthropist. Coverage is hyper-local, WP:SPIP, or routine. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the band he's in isn't notable, it sure can't be inherited by him. None of his bits of "Serial entrepreneurship" add up to notability. Reywas92^Talk 20:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The deficiencies of the sources are well covered by Richard3120. All of his entrepreneur-related coverage is either user generated or run-of-the-mill. Anything pertaining to his celebrity falls under WP:NOTINHERITED or by being one of many people on an MTV reality show and its attendant run-of-mill recognition. His other press comes from being a member of a band, but references indicating stand alone notability aren't apparent. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:08, 28 March 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.