Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zach Smith

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. Well, really, "restore previous redirect", but I'll go back and selectively restore revisions to implement that after the automation does its thing. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Smith

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Insufficient in-depth coverage in independent RS. Of the 15 references, most are "promotional" type interviews or passing mentions, or otherwise not independent. One exception might be the Daily Herald (Utah), but one article in a small city paper is not enough. Article created by SPA apparently to promote the subject. MB 00:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- In-depth coverage in Forbes, Standard Examiner, Daily Herald, KSL. Daily Herald (Utah), Forbes, Standard-Examiner and KSL (radio) all are reputable independent RS. There is not just one article in a city paper. Founder of the world's largest crowdfunding company. Easily meeting WP:GNG. Munozmayo (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC) — Munozmayo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The Forbes "article" was written by a "contributor", i.e. it's just a BLOG. The other three are local media, short "articles" which are mostly quotations of the subject - not meeting WP:BASIC. MB 02:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I am not sure whether you read those policies or you are just pointing them out without reading. In WP:BASIC, it's written "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". All these 4 Forbes, Standard Examiner, Daily Herald, KSL references are totally talking about the subject. Please read WP:NEWSBLOG before dismissing Forbes as BLOG. "Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs". Other three may be local media but they are reliable media. WP:GNG does not suggest that local media is unreliable. If it does then please provide me with the link because I just read the entire policy. You also said that those "articles" are short, they don't look short to me. I guess, most of the news articles are of that length. I hope you are not misguiding the discussion in order to prove your point. If you are going to point out some other policies this time then please highlight the exact wording, I had to read entire policy over and over just to understand where you are trying to point at. Munozmayo (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC) — Munozmayo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:BASIC states that coverage must be "independent of the subject". The local coverage is mostly quotations of the subject, "puff pieces" largely stating what the subject says about itself. These articles also fail the "significant" coverage criteria of WP:BASIC. WP:NEWSBLOG states that "These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process". Forbes is now a BLOG-hosting service where "contributors" are wholly responsible for the content they post. "Each contributor flies solo with his own blog. He is responsible for conceiving and creating the content, ensuring its accuracy and building an engaged, loyal readership. Forbes provides the technology and compensates some of the contributors, but otherwise, like all entrepreneurs, contributors are left to sink or swim on their own." Forbes BLOGs have been discussed many times at WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. One example is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 176#Forbes.com blogs. MB 14:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Subject is not appropriate to an encyclopedia. BLP sources insufficient. The references list is a copy of that for Funded Today. A promoter in a two-person shop is not a notable person, not yet. When the head of a billion dollar fund gets tossed, how can we defend this one? Rhadow (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree that subject doesn't meet WP:GNG. Also, creator of article User:Munozmayo appears to be a WP:SPA to promote Funded Today and its leadership. See WP:PROMOTION. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation: to clarify, in this case, the proposed "deletion" should instead be implemented by reverting Munozmayo's edits, and restoring the previously existing redirect to the dab page Zachary Smith. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC) rev. 04:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zachary Smith as outlined above. Sources presented are either not independent or not substantially about the article topic. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:56, 10 September 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.