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. Articles are kept if the subject passes the GNG; a subject passes the GNG if reliable sources provide in-depth discussion. Despite the appeals to Google hits, previous discussions on previous AfDs, and a bit of namecalling, this must stand or fall with the sources, and there are only three or four brought up in this discussion. The Forbes article is possibly acceptable (and it is a very friendly opinion piece), the Business Insider article is questioned about its reliability, the Entrepreneur article is possibly the most reliable (see below for discussion), but it's only four paragraphs. The last contributor mentions an article from a Phoenix paper, though that's brief and local.

That an article is or has been promotional in tone is not a reason for deletion; it is only a reason for editorial concern. However, though there is a significant number of "keep" voters, their arguments for notability lack strength, and the sourcing, it is argued pretty successfully by the opposers, is simply not strong enough to pass the GNG. Drmies ( talk) 04:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Tomas Gorny

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst: spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst: csm|username}} or {{subst: csp|username}}.

Tomas Gorny (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

An unremarkable businessman. Known as a serial entrepreneur and his "immigrant achieves success" human interest story.

The article went through multiple AfDs, the latest closing as "no consensus". (Prior results had been "no consensus" & "delete", then recreated via WP:DR, hence another AfD since). Since then, maintaining neutrality of this article has been a struggle, as evidenced by the discussions on Talk page.

The article recently went through a series of promotional edits, and now contains self-cited trivia such as:

• Today, according to SiteLock's website, their software is the only web security solution to offer complete, cloud-based website protection. ^[1]

It seems near impossible to get the article to an NPOV state; hence this nomination. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Keep It’s no surprise that K.e.coffman is the one nominating this article for deletion after SwisterTwister, whom I believe is the former editor’s meatpuppet fails when he tried to do the exact same thing. The Editor Interaction Analyzer shows that both of these individuals edit within one minute of each other on the same article, sometimes just 2 seconds apart! This evidence strongly suggests offsite collaboration between the two. Faithful editors have repeatedly tried to add sources, such as articles by Forbes and Entrepreneur, to the article, but both of these characters magically show up together and collectively oppose such efforts. This WP:GAMING of Wikipedia needs to stop. This is an encyclopaedia, not a personal playground. Eliko007 ( talk) 03:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Let's not turn this discussion into personal attacks, shall we? To report editor behaviour issues, please use WP:ANI, instead of casting aspersions here. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Not only is this not the proper venue for these allegations, they are baseless as the Editor Interaction Analyzer clearly shows. The Editor Interaction Tool only indicates the least amount of time between edits, not the first edit or when they !voted which would be indicator of possible collusion between editors. One actually needs to look at the interactions to determine this such as
  (here [1] !votes 4 days apart - 1 minute interaction was after they !voted),
  

(here [2] !votes 9 days apart - 1 minute interaction was after they !voted) and

(here [3] !votes 6 days apart - 2 minute interaction was after they !voted).

Both SwisterTwister (16,219 AFD's) and K.e.coffman (3,014 AFD's) are tireless and valuable participants at AFD's and it is not unusual, in fact, it is common that they will, from time to time, vote at the same AFD's as I, and several of the other editors at this discussion have. Lastly, in the last week K.e.coffman has participated in over 30 AFD's and this is the only one of those that SwisterTwister has participated in. CBS527 ^Talk 16:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete. I am not impressed by the Enterpreneur content, which is reprinted in Today.com. I see two decent refs here: BI at [4] and Forbes cited above. The Forbes one is essentially a curated blog. The BI piece is best, and I can't say anything bad about it. I can't see how the article looked when I prodded/AfD it (it got deleted at 2nd AFD). This one, nonetheless, still seems on the wrong side of being notable. I don't think this individual meets GNG. -- Hanyangprofessor2 ( talk) 04:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment --- I would note that the above Keep voter has repeatedly removed the notability tag from the article: diff1 & diff2. The latter one was the editor's 6th edit since opening an account. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Nice of you to point that out. Are you forgetting to point out that you've edit warred to re-instate the tag ( round 1, round 2, round 3) despite the fact that multiple editors have pointed out that the article was improved so that it falls within Wikipedia guidelines? Shall I provide an Editor Interaction Analyzer link for the third editor who helped you to do this (Lemongirl942)? I'll hold off on that, for now at least. However, I will point out that you blanked most of the article before nominating it for deletion. And btw, none of those were personal attacks. I simply provided diffs to point out evidence of your behaviour on the article. Nothing wrong with that right? We'll let the rest of the jury decide based on your actions. I'm putting an end to the WP:GAMING that's been going on here. Eliko007 ( talk) 01:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Shall I provide an Editor Interaction Analyzer link for the third editor who helped you to do this ( Lemongirl942)? Yes, please. :-) K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep The article is sourced (with a few substantial sources - and additional fluff), and a quick source check shows more sources. I agree the article itself is promotional - stub it down, keeping the noteworthy sources. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep The article itself is very poor, although a quick google search to me reveals enough sources to pass WP:GNG, although admittedly not hugely. It's a borderline one, but stub the article down to some information taken from reliable sources and remove the promotional material PenaltyCard ( talk) 10:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC) — PenaltyCard ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• Keep As a former professional in the hosting technology space, my knowledge of Mr. Gorny's professional accomplishments lead me to believe he is far from simply being "an unremarkable businessman" and a "human interest story". In previous versions of his page, there was a lot of promotional content, and it is my understanding of Wikipedia guidelines that the history of the page likely resulted in the first several rounds of AfD nominations. The article has much of the promotional content that is not useful or cited now removed, and it has been expanded with greater detail and several substantial sources verifying his notability. If more talk needs to be had about how to improve the content on the page, that should be had here ( Talk:Tomas Gorny). An AfD, however, is a bit of an extreme response to the page in my view. JonathanBentz ( talk) 13:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

How is this satisfying any of our set policies such as WP:What Wikipedia is not? Simply claims that he "must be notable" is not the same thing as actually showing the necessary notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep The subject is the founder of four major companies and the article is substantiated with a number of citations, thus establishing its notability. Business Insider and other sources found in the article, such as the Chicago Tribune, are citations that have wide repute in the United States (the purported country of orign where Tomas Gorny does business). Bmbaker88 ( talk) 23:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Chicago Tribune source is not really about Gorny. Instead, it's about a company called Double Robotics. Sample:

• Tomas Gorny, co-founder and CEO of Nextiva, a cloud-based phone-service provider in Scottsdale, Ariz., spends half his time traveling. But even when he’s out of the office, he’s in, in the form of a telepresence robot from Double Robotics. Dubbed Double TG, it’s an endearingly awkward union of iPad, selfie stick, Skype, and Segway. Says Gorny: “One of the most effective ways to feel like I’m in the room is by using my robot.”

That's the extend of coverage on Gorny in the article; his name does not appear again. Such sources are not sufficient for establishing notability. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment - The combined edit count of all 5 keep !voters is just over 1000. Edit count surely isn't proportional to quality/importance, and has limited value, but when it's that extreme something unpleasant is typically afoot. People who have only ever made a couple hundred edits don't typically stumble across AfD, and often appear because of an agenda (one or more of WP:PAID, WP:MEAT, WP:CANVASS, WP:SOCK, etc.). Not all the time, obviously, but it's cause to stop and smell the meat-scented roses when going to close a discussion that appears to lean a certain way. I've only done a cursory evaluation of the sources thus far, so am not yet !voting. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. remains basically promotional after many tries at improvement, including multiple AfDs. I count that as hopeless. If someone without COI wants to start over again, it can be attempted in Draft space. DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep' Tomas Gorny alone gets 8,590 Google hits, not to mention the amount of Google hits that his companies receive. A cursory look at the sources used in the article shows that Tomas Gorny does have notability, at least that sufficient to warrant the existence of an article her. Meatpuppetry issues raised by User:Eliko007 and User:Rhododendrites should be taken into account by the closing admin and reports should be filed at WP:RfCU if necessary.-- Jobas ( talk) 13:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Which of this will actually help? Because what I see there is a clear promotional primary or secondary press releases or notices, not independent coverage needed here. SwisterTwister talk 17:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep and, in fact, this AfD shouldn't have even been created. The nomination presents 3 points:

1. The subject is unremarkable (ie does not meet WP:GNG)
2. There were multiple AfDs
3. The article does not meet WP:NPOV

2 and 3 are not reasons for deletion. For #1, I can prove that the subject meets WP:GNG. In the Summer of 2016, the article was re-created by me and presented to AfC. The namespace was salted at the time. User:KGirlTrucker81 was the person who reviewed the AfC. She deemed that the subject meet WP:GNG. She then presented it to Deletion_review for un-salting, where it was voted upon by the admins -- User:K.e.coffman was not present at that debate. On 17 September 2016, the admins voted that there were enough reliable sources to meet WP:GNG (visit /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_September_17 to read both sides of the argument -- the arguments in that thread overlaps with the arguments in this thread ). Because this debate happened before in the past and because it was deemed that Tomas Gorny meet WP:GNG, we know that Tomas Gorny meets WP:GNG today. Tomas Gorny did not lose any notability between the 18th September 2016 and today. The result must be keep. CerealKillerYum ( talk) 15:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Yes, multiple AfDs that themselves show either doubts the subject was in fact significant or notable, and because of the repeated promotionalism, it alone violates policy WP:What Wikipedia is not, especially since a handful of these have been clear-label paid users, another policy violation. Together or alone, these are enough to supersede any chances because it violates our necessary considerations. The fact the promotional changes never paid attention to our policies about this is a violation alone, not that "he's still notable". Simply because it was accepted at AfC is not a lifeline at all, since AfD exists for exactly that, article examination. SwisterTwister talk 17:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• I contend that the argument for keep by editor CerealKillerYum is faulty, because of another AfD that happened in November 2016, two months after the DR discussion. This latest AfD closed as "No consensus", which means that there's currently no consensus that this topic is notable. Hence it's reasonable to bring the topic back to AfD for further community discussion. K.e.coffman ( talk) 18:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep: per CerealKillerYum's argument, although it can be improved. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• KGirlTrucker81 It was improved repeatedly before, but as the history shows, the promotionalism has explosively continued. How is this a policy-based Keep in considerations to these promotional contributions? 3 previous AfDs also claimed "Let's fix it" yet with nothing. SwisterTwister talk 17:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

@ SwisterTwister: The article is not promotinal, but the other creators are not paid by any organization or company (even me) besides we're all volunteers. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 17:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

@ KGirlTrucker81: Please see current article copy: "This patented security software, assigned to SiteLock, provides robust website content integrity checking while only lightly loading the website hosting server." Is this passage neutral? K.e.coffman ( talk) 18:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

@ K.e.coffman: Yes, doesn't contain any PEACOCK language. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 06:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete by all means as the main policies here at WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Paid, considering the history and also of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nextiva (3rd nomination) and Draft:Nextiva, both with clear promotional changes and users, including some of them now come-and-go accounts so WP:Sockpuppetry likely applies there. These three are main policies of which we use every day here, especially in company or business articles, so this is a no exception. We allow time for improvements when there's confirmed changes, not when WP:THEREMUSTBE SOURCES or WP:ITSNOTABLE. As mentioned, if someone ever wants an article, it's best to restart it with pre-reviewed changes, especially if there's chances of violating our paid-user policy. Although there are claims of "fixing" as shown here, the next page actually then shows there's been nothing but the previous old AfD-material, thus showing any new claims of supposed improvements are stalling, not beneficial to an encyclopedia. In fact, the current article still has the same elements of advertising as shown by his largest section advertised "Business" followed by "PR awards", which is (as shown by WP:GNG), not ever a convincing factor. Simply because a Wikipedian started this article is not an entire defense in our policies, since there's the obvious fact of the company's article not only being deleted, but it was campaigned by several COI people there. SwisterTwister talk 17:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• DELETE IT. This article doesn't know if its a personal résumé or a product brochure, which one does wiki allow? Better idea, send it to Monster.com where they actually host this kind of material. Carter2020
  • Comment - User:Carter2020 Wikipedia yearns to be the collection of all human knowledge. In that quest, there is an existing guide on how to do basic things like cast your suggestions here from as simple a task as stating delete or keep and there is no need to shout while at it.
    • Wikipedia absolutely does not yearn to be the collection of ALL human knowledge. I saw a rule against trivia. I saw a rule against promotion. I saw a rule against libel and disparagement of people. I saw a rule against being a dictionary. I saw many other exemptions from the collection of all human knowledge, and this online résumé for Gorny is one of them. Carter2020
• Keep - Having profoundly tracked the above discussions let me weigh in. The motivation for deletion is stated as It seems near impossible to get the article to an NPOV state; hence this nomination due to the recent edits made to the article. Last I checked this is not a valid reason for deletion at the AFD policy. Instead of this AFD the policy states that before an AFD, toning down the article to address promo or advertising should be considered which the nom didn’t attempt. Given this I have gone ahead and reset the article to a state where users seemed mollified with the state of the article which is a tenet of just how Wikipedia works. There is also a myriad of additional meatpuppet assertions with no evidence whatsoever and also allegations about WP:paid, sockpuppeting yet all with no tinge of corroboration. This AFD has attracted a few voices that are clearly suspect but that belongs in another forum. I would also suggest that if any changes are desired by anyone to this article they should be posted on the talk page for debate before they are posted into the main article like there was a prosperous confabulation about including certain sources or not which left everyone contented. Wikipedia has tools like locking articles if it is deterring edits from unexperienced users who are out to vandalize articles. Tushi Talk To Me 07:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Yes, NPOV issues usually are not a valid reason for deletion at an AFD but notability is a valid reason which the NOM also stated and is being discussed by editors on both sides of this discussion. CBS527 ^Talk 21:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Passes WP:GNG. In my opinion, SwisterTwister’s approach here is more destructive than constructive, and I know this has been mentioned in the past. Did anybody bother to check online about subject’s notability? The article was published by a confirmed contributor, and has been voted Keep by several senior editors and admins in the previous AfDs. We are now at the 4th nomination, and will go on to subsequent ones until the nominators get what they want. This is simply abuse and not the way AfD was intended. The subject easily meets WP:GNG, and that’s enough reason to keep the article. I’m opting to remain anonymous here to avoid any subsequent drama, just wanted to assist in the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.27.194.58 ( talk) 11:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC) — 88.27.194.58 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

88.27.194.58, while your post may be sincere, it doesn't really help that you're commenting anonymously and the individuals who I believe are gaming the system (named above) might use this to fuel their false narrative. Eliko007 ( talk) 18:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC) reply

User:88.27.194.58, I'm not sure what your point is. Admin vote's carry the same weight as any auto-confirmed+ editor. I do not see any Admin.'s who !voted Keep in this AFD or #3 AFD (which are the only ones where anyone voted keep) and, quite a number of "senior editors" have voted delete as well. CBS527 ^Talk 21:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:NOTSPAM Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete as promotionalism. WP:NOTSPAM is policy. Full stop. We give a lot of leeway to clean up around here when an article has been shown to meet the GNG, but borderline notability cases like this that have been delete before, and then recreated and still have the same promotionalism issues can be deleted per NOTSPAM. TonyBallioni ( talk) 02:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep: What I see is the same group of editors attempting to prevent the existence of an otherwise WP:COMMONSENSE notable article. A few of the editors commenting here also appeared at the article about Nextiva, one of the companies run by Gorny and tried to prevent its creation, despite it having close to 30 references. It's hard to assume good faith when the same thing happens over and over again with the same people involved. AR E N Z O Y 1 6A •t a l k• 02:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment -- to report user behaviour issues, please see WP:ANI. That said, editor Renzoy16 should have disclosed that he had been paid to create Nextiva; pls see: User:Renzoy16#Conflict_of_interest. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Actually, what you've linked is me properly disclosing per WP:PCD. On the other hand, you seem to have a high level of investment in all things related to Tomas Gorny and his companies (such as Nextiva) and you haven't disclosed that you have a COI at stake here (and that's not just me thinking that--other editors here have mentioned their concerns). That's not following Wikipedia's policies at detailed in the link I provided. AR E N Z O Y 1 6A •t a l k• 05:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply

I have no affiliation with Gorny, Nextiva, or any of their competitors. I frequently vote on company-related AfDs, this is how I came across this article. I've not been paid or solicited to nominate this article (or any other) for deletion. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep: After through research, this article is very well structured and dsiplays acceptable notability. Deletion is ONLY warranted, per Wikipedia policy, in extreme circumstances, such as lack of any content or notability whatsoever, or there is little to no sourcing. This article has decent sourcing and its subject is notable. I see no reason to recommend a deletion. Jkmarold55 ( talk) 04:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Striking sockmaster per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jkmarold55 TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment: editor Jkmarold55 has created a small number of articles on businesspeople / companies ( link), all of which have been deleted for lack of notability, see for example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cell Clinic Ltd. and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katrina Cravy. Separately, I do not find the argument to be well reasoned; deletion for lack of notability is quite common and not done only in extreme circumstances. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Please refrain from using past affiliations as ad hominem. In the loosest of senses this applies to you. Those two articles in no way pertain to the subject at hand, and I recommend that you refrain from vehemently background checking every person leaving info on this page in order to win your one man war. Thank you. Jkmarold55 ( talk) 05:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete as promotional. Lack of in-depth coverage in independent RS. Just doesn't meet GNG. MB 03:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per TonyBallioni. Boomer Vial ^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 07:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:BIO and WP:NOT applies.
  

After Kagundu's clean-up "(here)". and removal of the puffery and promotional material makes it clearer that there isn't much notable about the subject.

What we are left with is - a) person who has made and lost a fair amount of money, which in itself is not notable. b) Is on the BOD of a small to mid size tech company, which doesn't establish notability and, c) subject has started several companies which don't appear notable as none seem to "have had any significant or demonstrable effects" in their field and are pretty much one of dozens of companies in those areas, web hosting, VoIP business services and business web security services. WP:NOT - "Wikipedia is not a place to promote things" seems to apply.

The references don't appear to help either. Only 1 source (and it's mirror) seem to meet all the requirements necessary to establish notability - subject to have received "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" and "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.". The sources given are either not independent or primary per "Primary, secondary and tertiary sources policy. (also see Note #3)". and WP:IV, trivial mentions, or mirrors of each other as previously noted. The Enterpreneur/Today.com source does seem to meet the requirements to establish notability, one source isn't enough. (strike through the Today article as it was written by a person who has had a client relationship with one of Tomas Gorny’s businesses.)

Lastly, just as "promotional material" in an article may not be a reason to delete, neither are # of Google Hits (totally unreliable) per WP:INVALIDBIO, lots of sources, founding a non-notable company and being unsalted at WP:DRV reasons for keep. Unfortunately, with the exception of user Bmbaker88, not one of the keep !votes has noted which source(s) are reliable and independent and contain significant coverage. CBS527 ^Talk 18:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep The subject has over 155,000 hits in the Bing search engine. The sources in the article as it stands now, and the article before many of the sources were removed by other editors, meet WP:RS. This is the fourth nomination now and it's time to accept the article and WP:DROPTHESTICK. -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 21:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

There are NOT 155,000 hits. If I click on the link you provided, it shows 83,000, but that includes any hit or Tomas or Gorny. Searching on just "Tomas Gorny" results in 316, many of which are passing mentions or not RS (like hits to WP AFD logs!). MB 15:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply

I clicked on it just now, and now it shows 118,000 results. The number must be in flux. -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 14:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply

@ MB: Also, I searched "Tomas Gorny" just now, and I got 3,940 results. The number of results is definately in flux, for whatever reason. -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 14:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply

1990'sguy, If you search for "Tomas Gorny" in bing, it does initially show around 4k, but if you actually advance through the pages of links, when you get to page 13 the total drops to just 318, and it doesn't display any past #179 which may be the true number. I think the other numbers include duplicates that is later drops. MB 15:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply

OK, thanks for the clarification. However, the search without the quotation marks is much higher than 83,000 (although not 155,000 anymore). -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 15:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep as notable achievements are supported by the sources but also keep an eye on the page. It should be locked for an extended time, with new additions to be proposed on its talk page until it is clear that whoever wants to add anything understands what can be added. Nevertheless, the article should be kept so we do not punish whoever wants to check up on this person here, for past promotional acts. Hyperbolick ( talk) 16:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Then please show us how we can improve it, not simply suggesting it can be, because we all have in fact kept an eye, and shown by the history in restored advertising. The SPA accounts above themselves say then that they have no intentions of anything else different. "the article should be kept so we do not punish whoever wants to check up on this person here, for past promotional acts" How would that satisfy our "Wikipedia is not an advertiser" policies? SwisterTwister talk 18:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Attempts to add promotion to this article are handled exactly the same as attempts for Don King or Donald Trump. Not by deleting. Hyperbolick ( talk) 20:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Gorny is mentioned in prominent business news websites such as Forbes, Inc. and Business Insider. The articles mention: his business achievements; are of a very favorable character in that they stress his focus on creating value in the marketplace (solve customers needs) and they have a tone of inspiration as they tell the story of an immigrant who is a serial entrepreneur in his new country. Bloomberg.com has an executive profile and biography on Gorny that was compiled by S&P Global Market Intelligence. [5] According to Bloomberg, "He served as the Chief Executive Officer of IPOWER for seven years as he developed the organization into the second largest website hosting provider in the United States. " All these things add up to notability. Knox490 ( talk) 04:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Forbes can be self-published if it is from their contributors and the Bloomberg executive profile linked to is no big deal-- it happens to virtually anyone who has been a CEO/board member somewhere and is just routine reporting of facts that doesn't satisfy the GNG. Even if combined they did satisfy it, the sources still don't address the WP:NOTSPAM concerns. TonyBallioni ( talk) 04:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Is there any reason to doubt, as from the sources, that Gorny created the substantial businesses asserted? Hyperbolick ( talk) 20:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply
    • No, but that doesn't mean he should be included. I don't personally think he meets GNG: except for the business insider piece most of the coverage is trivial or interviews of him personally. The business insider piece also reads like a planted marketing story-- which means he's good at selling himself, but isn't evidence of notability. Even if he does meet GNG, he is borderline, and GNG is not the only inclusion criteria we have. WP:NOTSPAM is a valid reason to delete an article, and combined with the borderline notability case seals the deal. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply
      • Too quick to dismiss clearly notable accomplishments. If we agree these accomplishments are real based on the sources, there is notability. Enough that someone may want to read about this guy. Why punish that reader? Hyperbolick ( talk) 20:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply
        • The issues is that those of us who are arguing delete don't think that founding these companies is notable. There are a bunch of startup founders and CEOs. This guy is good at self-promotion and getting a bunch of people to come to this AfD to argue in favour of him, but the sources provided do not demonstrate notability as we ordinarily understand it on Wikipedia. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply
          • The Business Insider article says that IPower became "one of the bigger web-hosting companies in the US" which is beyond startup territory. I see no reason to doubt the factuality of their account. There aren't all that many people who started companies that actually went on to be sold for a billion dollars. Hyperbolick ( talk) 21:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Except he never sold any business for nearly $1 billion. Endurance International was the company that sold for that amount. EI was started by Hari Ravichandran in 1997.( "See".) Even Gorny's BOD profile ( "See".) on the EI site doesn't suggest this, it states he became a board member in 2007 when EI acquired IPower.

The Business Insider is primarily a business news aggregator site and does not guarantee the accuracy of this information. Their editorial policy states "The Sites and any information therein are provided without warranty of any kind, including the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for use of a particular purpose, accuracy, or non-infringement." CBS527 ^Talk 00:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC) reply

So the business that was built up to $1 billion value was not actually sold by this person for $1 billion because he later partnered with other people before that sale, that is splitting hairs. Hyperbolick ( talk) 19:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Not at all. The point is the statement that he "started companies that actually went on to be sold for a billion dollars" is factually incorrect, misleading and is WP:OR based on a faulty source. The information in BI article is contradicted by more reliable sources (on this matter) such as SEC filings (here's one "Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc".) and the EI website. Certainly IPower contributed to the value of the sale but so did the other 2 dozen+ companies acquired by EI.

Even if the information were correct, it has nothing to do with establishing the notability of Gorney as notability is not inherited. CBS527 ^Talk 13:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC) reply

The SEC filing you point to says of Gorny: "Thomas Gorny has served as a director of our company since 2007. Mr. Gorny also co-founded and served as chief executive officer and chairman of iPower, Inc., or iPower, from 2001 to 2007, and, following our acquisition of iPower in 2007, he remained in a senior leadership role at iPower until 2010. Mr. Gorny is the chief executive officer and chairman of Unitedweb, Inc., a company that invests in Internet and technology companies, where he has served since 2008 when he co-founded the company. In addition to serving as a director of Unitedweb, Inc., Mr. Gorny serves on the board of many of the private companies in which Unitedweb, Inc. has invested. We believe Mr. Gorny is qualified to serve on our board due to his extensive experience in our industry and detailed knowledge of our company and our business." I don't know everything that is supposed to go into an SEC filing, but it's not a negative proof, where the absence of something in it proves that thing doesn't exist or other sources are wrong about it existing. To me this just seems to add a source for notability, except I'm given to understand it's a primary source, so can't be used. If I'm wrong about that, go ahead and use it as another source. Hyperbolick ( talk) 14:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Primary sources can not be used to establish notability but can be used to verify "descriptive statements of facts." My point was that Business Insider article is inaccurate and not reliable.

Not sure what you mean about negative proof. SEC requires the disclosure of any material business dealings between the company and its directors and outside counsel. In other words, any financial interest or any interest in the operation of EI must be disclosed. Being a BOD member or having a senior leadership role in a subsidy(IPower) of EI or even having a smalll equity interest is not notable. We not talking about a notable company - IPower's market share is less than 1/10 of 1% of the top 10 million website and only accounts for less than 3% of EI's market share. "See-'Usage statistics and market share of IPower for websites'". CBS527 ^Talk 23:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC) reply

The link you provide does not support the proposition you provide it for. The Business Insider piece says "By 2007, IPOWER became one of the bigger web-hosting companies in the US." The link you provided shows market share a decade later, in 2016-2017. It has no relevance. It's like showing my chart of last year's car sales to propose that the Edsel was never a notable car. Hyperbolick ( talk) 02:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep – Excess promotion can be removed. Sources such as BI and Entrepreneur satisfy general notability guidelines. Building multiple successful businesses, including at least one billion dollar business, is notable. If it isn't, then Wikipedia is setting a very elitist bar. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 18:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Excessive promotion has been previously removed, and yet restored by clear paid COI users as shown above; so how can you assure us we won't be bombarded with COI spam again? If we were ever elitist, it was only appeared by an attempt o keep Wikipedia ad-free, wouldn't you agree? SwisterTwister talk 18:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Attempts to add promotion to this article are handled exactly the same as attempts for Don King or Donald Trump. Not by deleting. Hyperbolick ( talk) 19:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC) reply

If excessive promotion has been removed in the past, then it proves the issues with COI have remedies other than deletion. If the article falls into the category WP:SUSCEPTIBLE we can block socks, protect the page, and even implement sanctions against editors. The COI editing of this article is evident in its history. However, to combat COI and paid editing, we need to raise notability guidelines for ALL Wikipedia pages, not just the ones we want to get rid of because they could be susceptible to COI and paid editing. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 01:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Google News lists 398 news search results related to Tomas Gorney. He is definitely covered by the business news press (and his press is positive). The major newspaper The Chicago Tribune published a story entitled "An inspiring story of Nextiva CEO Tomas Gorny". [6] The Huffington Post published a story which was titled "Destination American Dream: Technology Innovator Tomas Gorny Shares His Story". [7]. Gorny passes WP:GNG. Dean Esmay ( talk) 02:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Desmay Actually, looking at those 2 articles, they're clear PR-hosted business profiles, with primary coverage from him, thus not independent for WP:GNG (which is a suggestive guideline, not policy). SwisterTwister talk 18:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment for the record, to note, there have been yet again claims the article can be improved, yet the history clearly shows there has been none, let alone significant ones, so all arguments suggesting it can and will be improved are as thin as the past AfD comments,and as such is not a policy-based argument. SwisterTwister talk 18:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC) reply

However, this should not play a factor in whether or not to delete the article. There are many articles on Wikipedia that suffer from POV bias, likely much worse than here. However, the fact that an article may be written from a POV stance or attracts POV-pushers is irrelevant to the notability of an article. We who !voted "keep" do believe that Gorny meets WP:GNG, and any level of POV in the article cannot reduce his notability. POV is an ultimately different issue from notability, and concerning the real question of this AfD, this article does pass the notability test. -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 02:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete--The article remains near-entirely promotional after multiple AfDs.If someone without COI wants to start over again, it can be attempted in Draft space. Salt as of now. Winged Blades ^Godric 07:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep I’ve watched this since the last deletion discussion because I kind of like to see how deletion discussions in which I'm involved turn out. Despite attempts at people adding promotional content, Gorny still meets notability guidelines based on several of the news articles already cited by others, including Entrepreneur which originally appeared in print. I think another one that has yet to be mentioned from the Phoenix Business Journal also helps the notability case. The bottom line is that he appears as the primary subject in a variety of regional and nationwide magazines and newspapers as most everyone who voted to keep has noted. Even the sources that "appear" to be PR pieces are outweighed by several independent, reliable, and verifiable sources out there. And I've tried to make this point on other AfD discussions that if you're going to question the veracity of particular publications because they "appear" to have promotional pieces, then you necessarily have to question every piece from those publications that might profile a subject in any remotely positive way. I think it's disingenuous to say that Forbes, Entrepreneur, Business Insider, Inc., and others were all in on the promotional campaign for Gorny. Truth in journalism doesn't need to have a strictly neutral bent, especially in the case of a special interest piece. Gargleafg ( talk) 03:45, 19 April 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.