Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert J. Ivanhoe

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 CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert J. Ivanhoe

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. The sources in this article fail BIO badly; the only in-depth source is a YouTube interview, all other sources are either mention in passing, niche trade journals (which have trouble with neutrality, and are not "mainstream coverage"), or clearly COI sources tied to the subject or businesses/organizations he is involved in. I reviewed argument at Talk:Robert J. Ivanhoe and I am not impressed; let me shot it down pre-emptively before it re-appears here: "He consistently makes the power 100 list of real estate businesspeople in New York." - so what? WP:ITSIMPORTANT is not a valid argument, and being in the Top 100 of biggest random-type-of-profession-listing in a city, even in the Big Apple, is not a criteria of notability. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Power 100 things are single paragraph deals that I can't consider significant coverage. Several Non-RS and minor mentions. Not seeing significant coverage by third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ivanhoe has arranged some of the largest real estate transactions in the country, the "youtube" interview is with the City University of New York and not just some posting, Ivanhoe is one of the go-to guys that the industry listens to get the pulse of NY real estate, the firm he grew is one of the largest real estate practices in the US, and I am not sure why industry newspapers and journals are not considered reliable sources for information. The Crain's article strongly supports notability as does the CUNY interview.Patapsco913 (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, being the "go to guy" isn't what makes someone notable. Arranging big deals doesn't either. The deal itself could even become notable, but that doesn't grant an individual notability. Is an interview with a college coverage? That's part of the debate I guess. I'll be honest, I strongly suspect paid editing is in play here. Paid editing, in and of itself, isn't necessarily wrong, but it isn't a bad idea to disclose if you are doing that. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have made over 20,000 edits to 3,725 unique pages which I don't think is a profile of a paid editor; also why would I add "Appeals Court Stays Malpractice Suit Against Greenberg Traurig" or spend an hour fixing broken citations on the entry for stoning https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stoning&action=history I just enjoy editing profiles and when I stumble across a nice news article or someone interesting I see if there is a page and if not I create it or add the article. This guy seemed to be notable enough (especially compared to all the porn stars and football players that have pages :-) so I figured it would not be a problem. I just enjoy the lay of the land in New York real estate and as I build profiles and such, I link them to other pages. Generally I am more interested in how they got their start in life but I clean up their career, add philanthropic efforts for balance, and family details for balance. Lawyers are a little harder to get info since their accomplishments are all tied up indirectly in transactions or in primary sources; and often NY people can get lost amongst the giants. The City University of New York is a serious institution with 500,000 students as is its programming. there is not much more I can add other than a bunch of articles by the New York Times and such which ask him to comment for a paragraph or so. People need to search his name w/out the middle initial as well though.Patapsco913 (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Number of edits doesn't tell me anything. Paid editors also edit as a hobby on things that interest them. And do you honestly think I didn't bother to look before I mentioned it? Nobody has said CUNY isn't serious and the number of students they have is irrelevant. The point you are missing is that those videos aren't really about him. In the ones I looked at they're mostly asking for his POV. I'm sure his POV is valuable, but that's not what matters. The standard is to be the subject of significant coverage, not a participant. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This entire video is a 30 minute interview with him about his life and career CUNY TV: "BuildingNY: Robert Ivanhoe" November 14, 2006

After "over 20,000 edits to 3,725 unique pages", I'd think you'd know how to properly cite a specific video instead of just a page that lists every video he's been appeared in. That would simplify things. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I made a mistake when I shifted the direct link to the you tube page for the same video on the CUNY TV page since I was concerned that referring it as a "you tube video" implied that it was posted by some run-of-the-mill person. I meant to put the CUNY page with the list of videos down in further references. We all make mistakes.Patapsco913 (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is about him (and it seems it is), I don't think 30 minute documentary that received no critical coverage and does not seem to have been aired much is a source that gives someone notability. Bottom line is that CUNY TV is a university online/cable TV broadcaster ([1]), which I'd classify as local. Just as if he got an article about him in the CUNY newsletter or university paper, I wouldn't think it's sufficient to make him encyclopedic. To be notable, one needs coverage in non-local sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any reference in the guidelines regarding notability that reference any distinction between local and non-local sources. So if I want to write an article about a mayor of a suburb in Chicago, I would need a non-local source, say in Ohio, to justify it? Patapsco913 (talk) 06:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that local coverage is not valid. That's not what Piotr is saying. It gives the appearance that it was made for "local use", ie, for the school. If a CUNY professor writes a textbook and it gets used at CUNY, it may be a very good textbook, but that doesn't make it notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow, I just search his name and I get a bunch of references in publications like the New York Times. To me the fact that a number of articles mention him as one of the top real estate lawyers in New York City, that he has presided over some of the largest real estate transactions in the city, that he is frequently asked to comment on the industry by the New York Times, that there is a detailed interview by the City University of New York who clearly thinks he is important in the industry, and that he built up one of the largest real estate practices in the country (see the Crain's New York article: "Robert Ivanhoe has helped build Greenberg Traurig into one of the city's biggest and most active real estate groups"), seems to make him notable. Even if a BLP were to require a non-local source, do you not think that CUNY TV is at least a regional influence? We are talking about a city of 9,000,000 and a metropolitan area of 20,000,000.Patapsco913 (talk) 06:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of those are mentions in passing that don't qualify as in-depth coverage. Outside the CUNY TV documentary, there is nothing here, and I think we will need other editors' views on that particular source. Perhaps it is regional, and you are right I don't see anything in BIO that explicitly forbids it; however video sources are, in my experience, not seen as very reliable (but you can also ask at WP:RSN). I'll ping User:Niteshift36 who commented here already re his take on this particular source. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was my point: that he is seen as an expert who the New York Times asks for commentary on the industry. They are not usable in the biography but show that the New York Times thinks he is relevant. I could add more but I figured that was sufficient. If we require a non-local source for all BLPs, we are going to have to delete a lot of biographies. I am was just browsing through mayors and politicians in the USA and a lot of them rely on either local papers or the local chamber of commerce for their only source. I really cannot see how that is Wikipedia policy given the sheer number of purely locally sourced articles out there. If I wanted to write about a locally businessman who was running for alderman in Chicago, I doubt I would find a non-local source; however, he would still be notable.Patapsco913 (talk) 07:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, you misunderstand the use of the word local and second, as Piotr correctly points out, passing mentions mean nothing in terms of notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how you would define it. Anyhow CUNY Tv is "The largest university television station in the country" and serves "7.3 million broadcast households in the New York metro area" and "CUNY TV is the recipient of 14 New York Emmy® Awards, and other prestigious industry honors including the Telly Award and Communicator Awards, and a total of 56 Emmy nominations" http://www.cuny.tv/about.php Patapsco913 (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to mayors, see WP:POLOUTCOMES. In their case, it is assumed that position of non-local cities is sufficient, through of course it can become heated for the borderline bios. And thus I am far from certain that your alderman in Chicago would survive an AfD. Anyway, there is no consensus on anything for business people except what is written in "Business_people_and_executives" section there, and that does not cover the current situation. There are plenty of AfDs where people show passing coverage, and argue that the subject is an expert cited in sources and thus should be kept, but in my experience this argument has not been commonly supported. Which means that you have to show how the subject meets WP:BIO, and again, it seems we have only one possible good source, the CUNY TV regional/local documentary. We need more opinions on it; I again would recommend you ask about the source at WP:RSN for extra input. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Videos are usable if the source is credible; hence one could use a video conducted by ABC News to note a statement by a person. That is exactly what I am doing here. I do not see how a program run by a university and shown on Public television is not reliable. http://thestolerreport.com/ Michael Stoler has a very good reputation and that is why all the biggest names in the industry are willing to be interviewed by him. If you go to the you tube channel you can see all the other people he interviews. As far as notability, there are three or four articles stating that he is one of the top real estate attorneys out there, there is the CUNY TV interview for his background (with Crain's New York Business and the Real Deal article for support), and then are a bunch of articles referencing some of his largest transactions. I have also shown that the New York Times recognizes him as an expert in his field. He has received numerous awards and recognitions. He sits on a number of boards. To me that sees sufficient to pass notability.Patapsco913 (talk) 08:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 06:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 06:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 06:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 06:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources seem to be basically mere mentions, so consensus is usually that we delete in such situations. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as News, Books, browsers and Highbeam all found links but unlike the currently sourced article, there's nothing but passing mentions so there's nothing to suggest a better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 30 November 2015 (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.