Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Flowers

John Flowers

NN. Bio extensively edited by its own subject. Subject isn't notable in any of his fields (computer security, literature, or film). Secondary sources for article fall into two categories: a long newsweekly article claiming the subject is a fraud, and superficial trade press hits. What little there is to be said about the subject cannot be written NPOV and within bio guidelines. What's there now is highly misleading. Tqbf 03:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keepThere are multiple published articles about him that are quite large and widely distributed. Even if he is only known for fruad it is enough. The rest of it has to be weeded out.--Dacium 04:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. Can I try to address it? It seems like published articles about the subject fall into fixed categories: (a) one large article in a credible secondary source which is almost entirely about how most of this Wikipedia article is false, (b) a few articles about that one large article, (c) superficial trade press hits. Respectfully (and hey, like Flowers, I gotta work in this town), anybody with a PR agent can get trade press hits. Acid test: Kozoru (NOT Flowers) has 40+ archived press releases; the overwhelming majority of companies with 40 press hits are not notable enough to have already been included in Wikipedia. In security, for instance (the field I work in), I'll name Mazu Networks, Arbor Networks, Lancope, nCircle, Sabre Security, Immunity, Determina, and Blue lane all as companies with substantial millions in revenues, substantially more press hits, and no wikipedia coverge.

So part of my point is, on principal, shouldn't we be skeptical of trade press hits (which tend to originate from press releases and PR-company story pitches) as secondary sourcing for notability? Should WP:BIO really build on something that easy to game? Tqbf 05:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not meet notability guidelines. Indeed, article doesn't even assert significance of subject. faithless (^speak) 04:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Problematically, the subject is not a "fraud", just prone to whoppers, such as allegedly fake degrees. His startups, however, are real, and Kozoru is mildly notable even if it went nowhere. Some of that just goes with the territory, e.g. Steve Jobs's reality distortion field, except that Jobs is wildly successful and Flowers is not. If WP:BLP means it's impossible to have an article, that's one thing, but no article is a drastic solution for an WP:NPOV problem. --Dhartung | Talk 04:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken re drastic measures. I considered that before I nominated the page. Kozoru no longer exists; it can count itself among thousands of tech startupts to have obtained only a first round of funding, no significant traction, a few superficial press hits, and an unfortunate demise. See this news brief: 3MM (a small amount) from a no-name fund, company liquidated pre-revenue. Is there value in trying to document this nn company, esp. in a bio page for an nn person hotly contested (and edited) by that person?Tqbf 04:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]