Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Goldstein

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 keep. The sources provided went mostly uncontested - a slapdash "media citations are not sufficient" isn't enough to negate them and the !vote "leaning" towards delete is qualifying their vote as they don't appear to be certain about whether the sources are sufficient. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Goldstein[edit]

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

Typical promotional spam.PR sources. Winged Blades^Godric 11:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs significant trimming to cut out PR, but AfD is not cleanup, and the Forbes and WSJ articles in particular go a long way to demonstrating the subject meets WP:GNG. Triptothecottage (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

interviews are typically bad sources.Winged Blades^Godric 13:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- @Winged Blades of Godric: Fair enough, but doesn't the presence of the interview in generally reliable and noteworthy publications indicate the subject is on the way to notability? Triptothecottage (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Q&As are generally not good sources because they're not independent. None of the links below are Q&As; they are mainly editorial. JSFarman (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have edited the article for tone, and I'm reformatting my comment again for clarity. None of the following are PR sources: Forbes[1], Inc : [2],Wall Street Journal [3] Wall Street Journal again: [4] CNN: [5], Business 2.0 (via CNN):[6], Forbes again: [7] Billboard: [8], CNET: [9] The New York Times [10]. JSFarman (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Restated again, because I just added a Wall Street Journal cover story that ran in 1997. Even without it, he meets GNG -- there's a major WSJ profile in 1999: "Site Specific Founder Tells His Rags to Riches Tale" . The "Find Sources" link above for the New York Times alone returns nine results. Here are two: Creator of Tunrtable FM Plans Online Hub and Compressed Data, Youthful Leader for Internet Push. There's a cover story in Inc. , a lengthy Forbes article; and Business 2.0 (via CNN) writes that he's the man who started the foodfight. TThere's more coverage on Goldstein in Forbes and WSJ, in addition to coverage in CNET, USA Today, Wired, Fortune, Billboard, Adweek, Business Insider, Fast Company and on and on. There are also books (you need only look at google search results, books, for "Seth Goldstein Entrepreneur" ).. JSFarman (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Goldstein is a significant figure in the history of internet advertising, and has more than enough reliable secondary source coverage to establish notability. ThePortaller (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--Difficult to distingush between promotional and non-promotional sources.Leaning towards delete.But am willing to change my mind.Let's wait for a few of the regular !voters!Winged Blades^Godric 18:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've reformatted my response above to make it less difficult. Also see my note to you on my talk page. JSFarman (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any case for notability; the media citations are not sufficient. There's a case that he is likely wealthy, but that's different from notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes general notability guidelines - WP:GNG - multiple reliable sources covering him extensively. Missvain (talk) 16:52, 16 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.