Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Herp

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.  Sandstein  17:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Herp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable business person. Written like a linkedin entry. Drdisque (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've reorganized the article, added a ton of content, and a number of references. William Herp appears to be a quite well known and discussed businessman, especially in aviation circles. I would say he easily meets notability standards. Silverseren^C 02:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as PR by all means, the one Keep vote above is merely asserting that he's known and there's "notability" but none of it actually amounts to notability thus, with no substance, delete. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm "asserting" he's notable through the copious amounts of in-depth secondary sources about him spanning years of his various businesses. It's called the General Notability Guideline, that's what we use for notability around here, not your claims of "PR". Especially considering I rewrote almost the entirety of the article. Are you claiming I wrote a PR article? Silverseren^C 06:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the GNG, what the article insinuates currently and what's still shown is PR, whether intended or not. Yes, there are some sources and they are from acceptable news sources, but still none of it actually establishes independent notability and substance. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Regardless of the GNG" Nope, stop right there. There is no regardless. The GNG (and subject specific notability rules) are all that matter here. That is the purpose of AFD, discerning notability of the subject. If there are PR issues with the article, that is something that needs to be fixed by editing the wording of the article to be more neutral. It is not an argument for deletion. Silverseren^C 18:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being still an advert-like article regardless of whatever can supposedly be fixed is an argument for deletion, especially if there is still nothing for his own notability apart from any claims of companies and people. This is an excellent example of deleting something and there has been considerable consensus with this at AfD numerous time before, especially since an advert can still be an advert even if not blatant. SwisterTwister talk 19:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an advert, it is a BLP about a person who works in business. Are you claiming all business BLPs are adverts because they include information on the businesses the people created? And notability is clearly shown from the in-depth discussion of the subject in secondary reliable sources, as I previously noted. Sources like this, this, and this. Silverseren^C 19:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- a corporate resume and no indications of notability. I cannot locate secondary sources sufficient to meet GNG. The company that the subject works at, Linear Air, may not be notable either. The three sources above appear to be trivial, such as

• Business Jet Traveler' -- interview with the subject and is not an indication of notability, only of their ability to do PR.
• WSJ -- cannot see the full article but it appears to be about the subject's business, not about himself
• Inc. -- these are trivial mentions, as the main focus of the article is a company where the subject worked as a CFO.

This coverage proves that the subject exists and that he had a career, but is insufficient to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @K.e.coffman: The sources are about his businesses and how he founded them or was involved with them. Those sources give the subject notability, just like books or movies do for other BLPs, see WP:NBIO. They are significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Also, your claim that an in-depth interview doesn't count toward notability is complete BS. There is no sourcing rule that states that. Please back up your claim of lacking secondary sources by actually addressing the copious in-depth sources in the article. There are far more than the three I mentioned, I just gave those as examples. Silverseren^C 05:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I would argue that a few articles in the press, some of them promotional / interviews, do not amount to "significant coverage" as per WP:GNG. This is a small company, of which the subject is the CEO. The coverage presented is insufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• An interview is not inherently promotional and claims of promotion must be backed up with evidence. Just claiming a reliable source is promotional has no backing. Significant coverage means, in most cases, a paragraph or more talking about the subject, preferably an entire article of course. You haven't actually given specific arguments to back up your claims of lacking coverage in regards to the coverage itself. Silverseren^C 04:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• An interview is a source inherently not independent of the subject, i.e. the subject is talking about himself, without any editorial oversight or fact checking. Thus, it cannot be used to establish notability.
• I also don't see how "Significant coverage means, in most cases, a paragraph" --? I've never encountered such argument before. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:SIGCOV: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." If something is more than a trivial mention (a sentence), but isn't the main topic of the source, then at least a paragraph meets that requirement. That has been generally understood as significant coverage for years.
• And where are you basing your claim that interviews are not independent? That's not how that term is meant at all. Unless you can show that an interview is actually a paid for Press release or something, which these aren't, then that doesn't fall under "non-independent". The fact that a reliable source is covering a biographical subject with an interview still counts toward notability. That has never not been the case. Silverseren^C 23:56, 3 September 2016 (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.