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
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. 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
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 Godric18:31, 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
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.
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
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. 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
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 Godric18:31, 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
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.