From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(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

interviews are typically bad sources. Winged Blades Godric 13:26, 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
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
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
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:09, 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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(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

interviews are typically bad sources. Winged Blades Godric 13:26, 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
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
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
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:09, 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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook