Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Walling (2nd nomination)

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Walling[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Most of the sources are either low-quality or not independent, I don't think this meets GNG or NAUTHOR. BuySomeApples (talk) 07:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. AllyD (talk) 07:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Minnesota. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BuySomeApples - I would like to improve the article. Based on WP:100W his footprint is in the several hundred words from multiple sources and WP:GNG indicates that 2 or more resources is enough to establish notability. Do you have suggestions for what should be removed or needs clean up? I believe it meets GNG but maybe I need to remove which sources and information are low quality? I researched the authors of the major articles, such as Forbes, Entrepreneur, Foundr, are not affiliated with the topic. Also, Walling has been mentioned and referenced in multiple books by independent sources within his industry. I realize Foundr may not have the weight of the others (which for journalism is becoming more and more dubious every day), but as a source they seem to actually have credibility within that industry and the authors do not appear to be pay-for. Walling has a lot of information on Google News and Books that are secondary/independent which I have referenced, so I am asking so I can remove what I might have missed that seems not independent enough. I tried to limit use of information from primary interviews to WP:BLP qualifying facts only.

Open to suggestions. Thank you! Autoshotdc (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Autoshotdc: WP:FORBESCON is not considered reliable unfortunately. They look like Forbes articles but they don't have any editorial oversight. Sources like Entrepreneur and Foundr, which include short quotes or soundbytes from Walling but are not about him, don't count towards WP:GNG. (Also, WP:100W is just an essay, it's an opinion not a guideline.) BuySomeApples (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Thank you for your reply! I see what you are saying, and I have a different interpretation. I realize that WP:100 is an opinion essay, and is therefore referenced the guidelines for GNG, as GNG is somewhat subjective, grey and less black and white, hence the existence of the essay and word counting as a loose framework to apply when situations are not black and white. The SAAS industry is rife with bad SMEs. He is a heavily referenced subject matter expert in his field, and I find him to be a rare credible source, most of his content not being paid-for and the ones that are, such as press releases, I did not reference in this article because they are not credible sources. However, I did take the time to review the Forbes contributors which is what is called for when it is a contributor, to generally distrust it and vet the writers yourself. For someone to be a reference in books, news mentioned so heavily by heavyweight individuals within a field establishes credibility, and to have published books in the field as well, so I'm going with keep on this one. Autoshotdc (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Autoshotdc: It's always disappointing to have one of your articles nominated for deletion. At the same time, it doesn't look like the Forbescon writers are subject matter experts, and the other sources in the article (the ones not written by Walling) aren't reliable, they're mostly podcasts, low quality websites or pay to publish. It doesn't even seem like WP:100 is really met if you don't count quotes/soundbytes and non-reliable sources. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (strike duplicate !vote Daniel (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)) reiterating that the author is an SME in the field, and one of the few worthwhile ones. I am an SME in the field and I listen to his podcasts. He is heavily referenced in books and magazines throughout the field. It's very niche but between the big names Forbes, Inc.com, Entrepreneur, and the niche mags, SaaS Mag, Foundr, breadth of info meets GNG.[reply]

Autoshotdc (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Right now, we just have two editors' opinions and we really need to hear from others. A reminder that another version of this article was deleted a few months ago.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete sources are mostly interviews, podcast and mentions. There are 2 book reviews, but they seem to be from bloggers and not any place reputable.Perfectstrangerz (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – A lot of sources come from people's blogs, interviews, non-staff sources. We also have a bunch of passing mentions that don't meet WP:SIGCOV. Not a lot of sources added since last discussion as User:Liz pointed out. TLA (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. As others above have stated the found sources seem to be interviews, blog type articles, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. If I've missed anything, post the best WP:THREE sources meeting WP:SIGCOV and I'll be happy to look at them. // Timothy :: talk 02:50, 18 January 2024 (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.