- 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. j⚛e decker talk 16:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Tyler Spalding
- Tyler Spalding ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BIO. No substantial coverage in reliable sources and a search in factiva turned up nothing but brief mentions. SmartSE ( talk) 20:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete, seems to be PR judging by the contributions of the (indef blocked) creator. Guy ( Help!) 18:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Sources are mostly web ephemera or trivial mention (as in Forbes article). Assertions of notability seem to be that he founded "StyleSeek" and that he was involved in "development of the External Fuel Tank for NASA’s Space Shuttle Program". Neither of these confer notability per se. (The latter cannot really even be true, since the overall Shuttle design was already finalized by the mid 1970s, before Spalding was born.) Agricola44 ( talk) 15:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC).
- Keep - Significant coverage in [1], [2], [3] and [4], [5]. StyleSeek is the primary focus of much of the coverage but there is significant coverage of the subject in these articles as well. ~ KvnG 15:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Crain's Chicago Business is a good source, but the others seem to be trivial mentions, including in obscure sources like college magazines and web portals. Notability in business generally involves in-depth coverage in mainstream sources.
Agricola44 (
talk) 06:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
-
WP:CORP requires mainstream coverage,
WP:BIO is not as demanding. Which applies here? ~
KvnG 13:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- As DGG just mentioned in the nominating statement at a different AfD, we have gone away from local sources because they tend to be indiscriminate. The thresholds for notability, regardless of the guideline being used, have increased significantly in the last few years. Independent of the problems this article has as a paid work, its sources do not demonstrate notability according to current conventions. Perhaps there are sources still yet to be found? Agricola44 ( talk) 19:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC).
-
WP:CORP requires mainstream coverage,
WP:BIO is not as demanding. Which applies here? ~
KvnG 13:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- Crain's Chicago Business is a good source, but the others seem to be trivial mentions, including in obscure sources like college magazines and web portals. Notability in business generally involves in-depth coverage in mainstream sources.
Agricola44 (
talk) 06:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as spam and salt. Article creator is a professional publicity agent who has created lots of these kinds of articles and is already under indefinite block for spamming and sockpuppetry. I love this statement in the lede: Spalding assisted in the development of the External Fuel Tank. Barf. In other words, he was one of tens of thousands of people who worked for a contractor that was involved in the project. One comment regarding the quality of the references, however; I would consider TechCrunch to be a reasonably reliable source. Yes, they are just an industry blog, but as followers of tech startups, they're a heavy hitter. Not the same league as, say, coverage in the Wall Street Journal, but also not just some random blog. On the other side of the coin, a $750K seed round is not earth-shattering news. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - So we have at least two acknowledged
WP:RELIABLE sources but we want to delete (with prejudice) because the article has NPOV issues and the creator of this article has wreaked havoc elsewhere? ~
KvnG 13:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- Personally, although the Chicago Business source is better than anything I could find, I don't think that's enough to meet WP:BIO. It's up to us whether we take into account the article creator - I didn't note this in the nomination as I feel that subjects should be judged in their own right, but considering that WP:NOTPROMO is part of a policy, it's justifiable for editors to use this as a rationale for deletion when notability is borderline. SmartSE ( talk) 13:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- Not just "wreaked havoc", but "intentionally abused the system for personal profit". Big difference. I want the reaction when we discover such abuses to be so painful that it acts as a deterrent and sets an example to other people. That includes deleting every article they have ever created. They are here to make money, so we need to hit them in the pocketbook. Let all their other customers discover that the wikipedia articles they've purchased have been deleted, and pound on the spammer's door looking for a refund. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 17:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- Relisting rationale - Would like to allow for further discussion of the sources that were provided above, and whether or not they are sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG and/or WP:BIO. ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 17:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. In my reading, the sources are mostly regional. One that caught my attention was MIT Sloan Management Review, a respected journal, but article is a blog interview and about subject's venture much more than about subject. Am not sure about status of TechCrunch, but article is again more about venture.
Truth or consequences-2 (
talk) 14:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Re: TechCrunch, yes, it's about the company. That's what TC writes about. Any mention of people related to the company is in passing, and for sure, if we're looking for evidence that this person is notable, notability of the company does not inherit to the person. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- WP:CORP frowns on regional sources. I don't believe they are a problem for WP:GNG or WP:BIO. ~ KvnG 03:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sources have to be "published", but
WP:BIO is otherwise somewhat vague. In practice, we typically do not weigh what you've called "regional sources" very heavily, for example neighborhood newspapers, institutional or corporate bulletins/newsletters, etc. We also don't count web ephemera for much either, for example
ref 2 in the article, which apparently is a webzine for community and culture. I agree with Roy: paid editing is an increasing problem violating the fundamental tenet of WP. In this case, as with many, the agent has tried too hard and the article is shoddy. The sources are poor and some of the claims are demonstrably false (see my comment above regarding the Shuttle). I don't think there's any impediment to recreating the article, if proper sources can be found.
Agricola44 (
talk) 15:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC).
- There seems to be a chorus concerning making a statement about paid promotion on WP. I haven't looked into it myself but apparently the author of this article has been disciplined. It seems like any statement we'd choose to make should be made in whole as part of the discipline process and not one off and ongoing in individual AfD discussions. Researching and bringing background information on contributors to articles as part of the AfD discussion does not seem like it is a door we should open. ~
KvnG 20:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that we shouldn't delete articles purely because they are written by paid editors gaming the system, but if as in this case notability is shaky, it's hardly surprising that the consensus swings towards deletion. To provide some background: I came across this from looking over the socks here and then found what appear to be many more. This isn't just one editor. SmartSE ( talk) 22:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- There seems to be a chorus concerning making a statement about paid promotion on WP. I haven't looked into it myself but apparently the author of this article has been disciplined. It seems like any statement we'd choose to make should be made in whole as part of the discipline process and not one off and ongoing in individual AfD discussions. Researching and bringing background information on contributors to articles as part of the AfD discussion does not seem like it is a door we should open. ~
KvnG 20:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sources have to be "published", but
WP:BIO is otherwise somewhat vague. In practice, we typically do not weigh what you've called "regional sources" very heavily, for example neighborhood newspapers, institutional or corporate bulletins/newsletters, etc. We also don't count web ephemera for much either, for example
ref 2 in the article, which apparently is a webzine for community and culture. I agree with Roy: paid editing is an increasing problem violating the fundamental tenet of WP. In this case, as with many, the agent has tried too hard and the article is shoddy. The sources are poor and some of the claims are demonstrably false (see my comment above regarding the Shuttle). I don't think there's any impediment to recreating the article, if proper sources can be found.
Agricola44 (
talk) 15:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC).
- Delete as above. Xxanthippe ( talk) 23:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC).
UnsureDelete Unlike the usual, there are sufficient acceptable sources. A full scale interview in TeleChrch has generally been associated with notability (the title of the piece does not indicate it's a full article, not just a routine notice, but reading the article makes it clear that it's substantial coverage) . The MIT and Forbes interviews similarly add to it. Crain's Chicago Business is nto in my opinion acceptable for notability , for the reasons already given, but the other three are. As I suppose everyone here knows, I am very skeptical about paid editing. It can however be defensable if the subject is notable and the article not overly promotional. There is some material in here I considered characteristic of promotion (the personal details about how he happened to think of starting the company is a worn-out cliché), but I have just removed it. Even if we end up deleting it, I think it's worth a look to see what a neutral article would be like. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- 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 delete. j⚛e decker talk 16:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Tyler Spalding
- Tyler Spalding ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BIO. No substantial coverage in reliable sources and a search in factiva turned up nothing but brief mentions. SmartSE ( talk) 20:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete, seems to be PR judging by the contributions of the (indef blocked) creator. Guy ( Help!) 18:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Sources are mostly web ephemera or trivial mention (as in Forbes article). Assertions of notability seem to be that he founded "StyleSeek" and that he was involved in "development of the External Fuel Tank for NASA’s Space Shuttle Program". Neither of these confer notability per se. (The latter cannot really even be true, since the overall Shuttle design was already finalized by the mid 1970s, before Spalding was born.) Agricola44 ( talk) 15:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC).
- Keep - Significant coverage in [1], [2], [3] and [4], [5]. StyleSeek is the primary focus of much of the coverage but there is significant coverage of the subject in these articles as well. ~ KvnG 15:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Crain's Chicago Business is a good source, but the others seem to be trivial mentions, including in obscure sources like college magazines and web portals. Notability in business generally involves in-depth coverage in mainstream sources.
Agricola44 (
talk) 06:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
-
WP:CORP requires mainstream coverage,
WP:BIO is not as demanding. Which applies here? ~
KvnG 13:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- As DGG just mentioned in the nominating statement at a different AfD, we have gone away from local sources because they tend to be indiscriminate. The thresholds for notability, regardless of the guideline being used, have increased significantly in the last few years. Independent of the problems this article has as a paid work, its sources do not demonstrate notability according to current conventions. Perhaps there are sources still yet to be found? Agricola44 ( talk) 19:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC).
-
WP:CORP requires mainstream coverage,
WP:BIO is not as demanding. Which applies here? ~
KvnG 13:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- Crain's Chicago Business is a good source, but the others seem to be trivial mentions, including in obscure sources like college magazines and web portals. Notability in business generally involves in-depth coverage in mainstream sources.
Agricola44 (
talk) 06:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as spam and salt. Article creator is a professional publicity agent who has created lots of these kinds of articles and is already under indefinite block for spamming and sockpuppetry. I love this statement in the lede: Spalding assisted in the development of the External Fuel Tank. Barf. In other words, he was one of tens of thousands of people who worked for a contractor that was involved in the project. One comment regarding the quality of the references, however; I would consider TechCrunch to be a reasonably reliable source. Yes, they are just an industry blog, but as followers of tech startups, they're a heavy hitter. Not the same league as, say, coverage in the Wall Street Journal, but also not just some random blog. On the other side of the coin, a $750K seed round is not earth-shattering news. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - So we have at least two acknowledged
WP:RELIABLE sources but we want to delete (with prejudice) because the article has NPOV issues and the creator of this article has wreaked havoc elsewhere? ~
KvnG 13:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- Personally, although the Chicago Business source is better than anything I could find, I don't think that's enough to meet WP:BIO. It's up to us whether we take into account the article creator - I didn't note this in the nomination as I feel that subjects should be judged in their own right, but considering that WP:NOTPROMO is part of a policy, it's justifiable for editors to use this as a rationale for deletion when notability is borderline. SmartSE ( talk) 13:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- Not just "wreaked havoc", but "intentionally abused the system for personal profit". Big difference. I want the reaction when we discover such abuses to be so painful that it acts as a deterrent and sets an example to other people. That includes deleting every article they have ever created. They are here to make money, so we need to hit them in the pocketbook. Let all their other customers discover that the wikipedia articles they've purchased have been deleted, and pound on the spammer's door looking for a refund. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 17:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- Relisting rationale - Would like to allow for further discussion of the sources that were provided above, and whether or not they are sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG and/or WP:BIO. ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 17:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. In my reading, the sources are mostly regional. One that caught my attention was MIT Sloan Management Review, a respected journal, but article is a blog interview and about subject's venture much more than about subject. Am not sure about status of TechCrunch, but article is again more about venture.
Truth or consequences-2 (
talk) 14:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Re: TechCrunch, yes, it's about the company. That's what TC writes about. Any mention of people related to the company is in passing, and for sure, if we're looking for evidence that this person is notable, notability of the company does not inherit to the person. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- WP:CORP frowns on regional sources. I don't believe they are a problem for WP:GNG or WP:BIO. ~ KvnG 03:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sources have to be "published", but
WP:BIO is otherwise somewhat vague. In practice, we typically do not weigh what you've called "regional sources" very heavily, for example neighborhood newspapers, institutional or corporate bulletins/newsletters, etc. We also don't count web ephemera for much either, for example
ref 2 in the article, which apparently is a webzine for community and culture. I agree with Roy: paid editing is an increasing problem violating the fundamental tenet of WP. In this case, as with many, the agent has tried too hard and the article is shoddy. The sources are poor and some of the claims are demonstrably false (see my comment above regarding the Shuttle). I don't think there's any impediment to recreating the article, if proper sources can be found.
Agricola44 (
talk) 15:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC).
- There seems to be a chorus concerning making a statement about paid promotion on WP. I haven't looked into it myself but apparently the author of this article has been disciplined. It seems like any statement we'd choose to make should be made in whole as part of the discipline process and not one off and ongoing in individual AfD discussions. Researching and bringing background information on contributors to articles as part of the AfD discussion does not seem like it is a door we should open. ~
KvnG 20:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that we shouldn't delete articles purely because they are written by paid editors gaming the system, but if as in this case notability is shaky, it's hardly surprising that the consensus swings towards deletion. To provide some background: I came across this from looking over the socks here and then found what appear to be many more. This isn't just one editor. SmartSE ( talk) 22:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- There seems to be a chorus concerning making a statement about paid promotion on WP. I haven't looked into it myself but apparently the author of this article has been disciplined. It seems like any statement we'd choose to make should be made in whole as part of the discipline process and not one off and ongoing in individual AfD discussions. Researching and bringing background information on contributors to articles as part of the AfD discussion does not seem like it is a door we should open. ~
KvnG 20:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sources have to be "published", but
WP:BIO is otherwise somewhat vague. In practice, we typically do not weigh what you've called "regional sources" very heavily, for example neighborhood newspapers, institutional or corporate bulletins/newsletters, etc. We also don't count web ephemera for much either, for example
ref 2 in the article, which apparently is a webzine for community and culture. I agree with Roy: paid editing is an increasing problem violating the fundamental tenet of WP. In this case, as with many, the agent has tried too hard and the article is shoddy. The sources are poor and some of the claims are demonstrably false (see my comment above regarding the Shuttle). I don't think there's any impediment to recreating the article, if proper sources can be found.
Agricola44 (
talk) 15:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC).
- Delete as above. Xxanthippe ( talk) 23:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC).
UnsureDelete Unlike the usual, there are sufficient acceptable sources. A full scale interview in TeleChrch has generally been associated with notability (the title of the piece does not indicate it's a full article, not just a routine notice, but reading the article makes it clear that it's substantial coverage) . The MIT and Forbes interviews similarly add to it. Crain's Chicago Business is nto in my opinion acceptable for notability , for the reasons already given, but the other three are. As I suppose everyone here knows, I am very skeptical about paid editing. It can however be defensable if the subject is notable and the article not overly promotional. There is some material in here I considered characteristic of promotion (the personal details about how he happened to think of starting the company is a worn-out cliché), but I have just removed it. Even if we end up deleting it, I think it's worth a look to see what a neutral article would be like. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- 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.