Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Wilson (Entrepreneur)

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'Blnguyen' (bananabucket) 04:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brad Wilson (Entrepreneur)

Non-notable biography about the creator of a bargain hunter website. Article created by a single-purpose account. --Nehwyn 07:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Disagree: Website, work in education is notable. — Possible single purpose account: Thepose (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

Note: the comment above is from the author of the article. --Nehwyn 07:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Further references from Wall Street Journal, ABC News, E-Commerce Times and others proving that "notable" is not at issue:

• http://www.bradsdeals.com/wsj.htm
• http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/features/47482.html
• http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=local&id=3744452
• http://www.internetnews.com/ec-news/article.php/3556116
• http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/printStory.pl?article_id=24784
• http://www.bradsdeals.com/press-titanium.cfm

• Delete This is pure self-promotion. Note that the author User:Thepose has only written two articles: this one and BradsDeals. He has also contibuted to KIPP: Lead College Prep Charter School, but his main effort there has, once again, been self-promotion. Emeraude 13:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Thepose has stated he is a coworker of the subject of the article. This woul qualify as WP:VAIN, I believe. --Nehwyn 10:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Does not meet WP:BIO requirements. Deli nk 13:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom and WP:SPAM.Tubezone 14:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete vanispamcruftisement. Danny Lilithborne 16:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The article will benefit greatly from expansion, but already meets criteria of WP:BIO, notably that The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. Any delete vote that includes the word cruft or any form of the word is usually enough to convince me to keep the article as a sign that people are submitting knee-jerk deltion votes. Alansohn 17:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Responding to a supposed "knee-jerk" vote with one of your own? Nice. Danny Lilithborne 17:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Let's see. I looked at the article, read the sources and reviewed relevant Wikipedia policies, making reference to the criteria by which the article deserves retention. Then I did some additional Google News Archive searches verifying the information, and expanded the scope of the article with references. You came up with "vanispamcruftisement". I'd say knee-jerk is pretty accurate. Can you refer me to a Wikipedia source for "vanispamcruftisement" as a justification for deletion? Alansohn 18:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment whose source is independent of the person is the key phrase, the articles cited here are almost all puff pieces that depend on Brad for the contents. This major electronics distributor and this hot dog stand have both gotten more press than Bradsdeals, but don't have WP articles. I guess the question here is whether publicity = notability. Tubezone 18:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment WP:CSD G11, smartypants. Danny Lilithborne 18:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment 1) Tubezone - The individual in question has been covered by the Wall Street Journal, a source that is independent of the person and is not a puff piece (Are you familiar with the Wall Street Journal?) and has been covered by several other independent articles in full compliance with WP:RS and WP:V The fact that you can supply other articles that you feel are less notable is completely and entirely irrelevant, either to support the article or to oppose it, it simply is not a valid argument. The question is whether we observe the fact that this article meets WP:BIO, that The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. or to use Tubezone's imaginary standard of does it have more coverage than some arbitrary hot dog stand. 2) Danny Lilithborne - I don't see "vanispamcruftisement" at WP:CSD, nor is this article a candidate for speedy deletion. Please make an attempt at justifying your vote, above and beyond concocting "vanispamcruftisement" by reference to relevant policy. 3) Will anyone address whether the individual meets WP:BIO using sources that fully satisfy WP:RS and WP:V? Alansohn 18:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment Do you have a subscription to WSJ? Because without one, it's impossible to verify the "Wall Street Journal" link to provide (really a BradsDeals page which ostensibly reprints the article). And that's all this guy has so far; even then, I still don't buy the relevance of the other (local) sources. And just because an article is up for AfD doesn't mean it can't be speedied. In my opinion, it meets the G11 speedy standard (which is sometimes called vanispamcruftisement) and should go. A "strong keep" vote, on the other hand, has zero justifiction given the tenuous sourcing. Danny Lilithborne 19:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Comment Tenuous, like WP:VSCA? While it means that you will actually have to do some work, the full text of the article is not available online to non-subscribers. That it exists, refers to the individual in question is undeniable, and there is no requirement of WP:V that requires a link that will pull up the article in its entirety (nor has anyone ever provided one of those concocted sources that says so). The link provided in the reference is an accurate copy of the full article as it appeared online and corresponds exactly to the article that appeared in the Eastern Edition of the Wall Street Journal on page B8 of the January 4, 2005 issue of the paper. If you can demonstrate that this source does not pass both WP:RS and WP:V, let's hear. WP:VSCA is a cute little blurb, but we don't pay attention to things someone made up in school one day, we use actual Wikipedia criteria, such as WP:BIO. Please stop using imaginary, made-up criteria and deal with the issue at hand: the Wall Street Journal article fully satisfies WP:BIO with a source that meets WP:RS and WP:V. Alansohn 19:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
              • I'd say knee-jerk is pretty accurate. I'd say it's mind-reading on your part, actually, to proclaim that you know the thinking and methodology of someone else using the thin evidence you have, Or perhaps "projection" is more apt. --Calton | Talk 19:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
                • Are you implying that "vanispamcruftisement" is a demonstration of "thinking and methodology" on anyone's behalf? And aren't you projecting what my thought process was? Please address the issue at hand with reference to Wikipedia policy, not with what you think I thought someone else meant. Alansohn 19:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
                  • It's called a "conclusion": the mere conclusion of something says nothing about how that conclusion was reached. And as for your thought process, that's in evidence. Your possible projection issues I leave to those more qualified to analyze it. --Calton | Talk 01:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
              • Comment WP:BIO repeatedly says in its texts that multiple non-trivial sources are required. All the articles here, including the WSJ article, are fluffy "next big thing" pieces of little importance. (edit: I'm getting too heated and I don't even care about this topic. I'm not withdrawing my vote, but I'm not going to defend it.) Danny Lilithborne 20:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
                • Comment I'm glad you're referring to WP:BIO, which does not define "non-trivial". WP:CORP provides the definition of trivial coverage as Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company. [or] Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories. This standard is more than satisfied by teh sources provided. The article in the Wall Street Journal and the coverage on WLS-TV (the ABC flagship affiliate in Chicago) far exceed the non-trivial standard required, as they cover the individual, his business and the industry at length and in detail. I'd suggest taking a look at a print copy of the Journal, which does NOT print "fluffy" articles. You can use that argument if there was only one article in one local publication, but the pattern of coverage in national publications demonstrates full compliance with WP:Notability, using non-trivial sources from major media that meet the WP:RS and WP:V standard required by WP:BIO. Anyone else want to defend thair delete vote? Alansohn 20:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
                  • Comment JMHO, you're WikiLawyering. The items cited including the WSJ articled are non-critical (and, yes, IMHO the WSJ has a POV to push, and can be as gullible as any other media outlet). Like the hot dog stand guy, this fellow obviously has media friends to get this much coverage on what amounts to yet another coupon/referral site that gets most of its business through paid search-engine advertising and doesn't handle any actual merchandise. I don't think skillful media manipulation should necessarily equal notability. Tubezone 22:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
                    • Comment JMHO, but your WikiLawyering charge is offensive and ignores the facts. All you can come up with is an appeal to WikiLawyering, which the article itself defines as "pejorative". My definition is that stooping to charges of WikiLawyering is what individuals do when Wikipedia policy does not fit their own arbitrary personal interpretation of what they have decided, based on their own personal research, to be the "right thing". While I have pointed to multiple major media references and explicit Wikipedia policy, all you can come up with is your entirely unsupported supposition that there has been "media manipulation", skillful or otherwise, of the "media friends" that he "obviously" has. As to your utterly pointless concern regarding the fact that it "doesn't handle any actual merchandise", isn't that sort of like the EBay business model? When will you be opening the EBay AfD? Alansohn 19:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I might add that one of the strategies suggested by Wikipedia guidelines for trying to understand whether web-based sources, such as GHits, are inflated by publicity is to do a newsgroup search. I've tried that, and there's pretty much nothing. --Nehwyn 18:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

On further thought, I should also add that some of the content of the article tries to establish notability for the website, not for the person. These are different things. There was an article about the website, by the way, only it got deleted as g11. --Nehwyn 18:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Spam, vanity, fails reliable sources criteria (local business papers are NOT reliable except as sources of rewritten prss releases and puff pieces. --Calton | Talk 19:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Are you calling the Wall Street Journal article a "puff piece" Or is the WSJ a "local business paper"? You have a prayer of justifying "spam" or "vanity", but you can't possibly defend that WP:RS is not met. Alansohn 20:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • My apologies: I should have included the adjective "multiple" and "non-trivial" so you couldn't Johnny Cochran you way through it. --Calton | Talk 01:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • • How about this link, providing coverage on Mr. Wilson and his business from WLS-TV, the local ABC flagship station in Chicago? This is one of several such articles listed in the articles. That reads "multiple" and "non-trivial" to me. Alansohn 02:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
        • WLS-TV did a nice bit on this hot dog stand. The same hot dog stand just got a front-page writeup on the Chicago Sun Times food section. Yet, no WP article. I won't write it, I don't think he's more notable than Superdawg.

• Delete per above Z388 20:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Multiple independent verifiable sources for notability: Wall Street Journal and ABC News far exceed the requirements. Edison 20:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The fact that he created his own article isn't enough of a reason to delete. There's good evidence of notability from reliable secondary sources. This could be developed into a perfectly good, interesting article that would enrich the knowledge base of Wikipedia. Let's welcome this newcomer and give him some guidance about editing. Please don't bite the newbies. He just needs some help, that's all. OfficeGirl 22:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment This guy by his admission spends $400,000 per year on web advertising, so he's hardly a "newbie". He also knows that being listed here raises his Google PageRank, too. IMHO this article is just more media manipulation, now he can point to WP as well to assert credibility and notability. I bet he's reading and enjoying this discussion, too. Sorry, OfficeGirl, I've learned to be just a tad cynical about this kind of thing. ;-) Tubezone 23:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Article needs to be neutered and spayed though Raffles mk 22:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete G-11 WP:CSD, vanispamcruftisement. L0b0t 22:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You've taken a first step, refering to an actual Wikipedia policy as an excuse for deletion. Unfortunately the policy you refer to Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company, product, group or service as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion: an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well. refers to companies, products, groups or services, NOT individuals. If this is your only justification, it doesn't hold. Alansohn 13:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but rename to Brad Wilson (businessman) references are given for notability --Steve 23:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Absolutely non-encyclopedic material. As it stands now the article is some kind of business directory/whatnot entry, not an encyclopedic article. Ekjon Lok 03:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Is there a specific Wikipedia policy that you feel is not being fulfilled? Alansohn 18:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • While I do not wish to label this as "vanity" or "spam" or anything like that, I believe that the person is just not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. The person described is a very succesful businessman, apparently, but nothing more. Wikipedia cannot have articles on every successful businessman. The article is a short resume of his achievements, but does it contribute much to the general knowledge? Or think of it this way: can this article be significantly expanded by someone not connected personally with Brad Wilson or any of his enterprises? Can this ever become anything close to a featured article? I think not; if kept it will forever remain what it is, a directory entry. It's true that the Wall Street Journal is a reputable source, but simply being interviewed by the Wall Street Journal does not yet constitute notability. Ekjon Lok 17:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree that the Wall Street Journal is a reputable source, and it is not the only unimpeachable, independent, non-trivial source, as listed above and in the article. I have alrady edited this article and will continue to do so, expanding the article using the multiple available sources. I'm unfamiliar with your "successful, but nothing more" or the "potential featured article" standards, and you aren't making reference to a specific Wikipedia standard that is not being met. It's very difficult to defend an article against original research and gut feelings
        • I do have understanging for all the "keep" votes, but my vote still stands for "delete". As I have said, the person in question is indeed a very successful businessman, and I do not doubt that he is much admired by all around him and generally regarded as a pillar of society, but there really must be something more than that to make it into Wikipedia. Bill Gates is notable. Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak are notable. I am sure the person in question, Brad Wilson, has achieved much and made a very valuable contribution to society, but I just don't feel he is significant or exceptional enough to be included in a general knowledge encyclopedia. After all, we do not include every high school teacher, however much admired by his (her) students, or every church minister, however much loved by his (her) congregation. I urge everyone to stand back, for a moment, and look at this project (Wikipedia) as what is aspires to be: a general-knowledge encyclopedia, a free counterpart to Britannica, Encarta, Columbia etc. We must maintain at least some standard for inclusion of entries. Simply being a successful businessman, founding successful companies, getting millions in revenues, and being interviewed by the Wall Street Journal, is just not enough, in my view. Ekjon Lok 03:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per OfficeGirl and Edison. All of us have to start somewhere, this is taking the whole "single purpose account" thing too far. Yamaguchi先生 08:09, 1 November 2006

Okay, but User:Thepose personally knows the subject of this bio article, as they work together. That's a major mark of a single-purpose account. --Nehwyn 10:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply - Even if the article was created in conflict with WP:VAIN, that is not a justification for deletion, as long as other editors are editing the article, verifying the information provided, and doing so in a neutral manner. I have already edited the article, and will continue to do so, and I have no connection whatsover to the individual involved. As the article complies with WP:BIO using independent, non-trivial sources that meet WP:RS and WP:V, there is no reason that any initial concerns regarding WP:VAIN are irrelevant at this point. Unless these delete votes citing WP:VAIN isues are solely vindictive, the simple remedy of having these editors checking and editing the article themselves would solve their problems. Alansohn 13:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete NN. Arbusto 23:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. 124 unique google hits for bradsdeals.com . 500 UNIQUE google hits "Brad Wilson". It may be that the huge ratio of total hits to unique hits suggests google bombing is in effect. BradsDeals garners no hits from forbes bitpipe.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Switch to keep Based on Wallstreet Joutnal coverage.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Back to original posistion. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You really don't think he doesn't know how to google-bomb or manipulate media, or that WSJ doesn't have an agenda or is open to manipulation? The average McDonald's does twice the actual gross this clown does, we don't give each and every McDonald's restaurant their own Wikipedia article. There's real estate agents that sell a lot more than $2,000,000 of property a year, if a real estate agent tried to put an vanity article in Wikipedia, it'd get shot down in a heartbeat. This guy runs a coupon/referral parasite website, it's no more notable than any other crap referral or coupon web site, and there's thousands of them. Letting this guy in is setting a precedent that every web weasel who can get some print notice ought to be in Wikipedia.Think. JMHO, folks.Tubezone 04:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment So you have decided that this individual has manipulated the Wall Street Journal, the nation's leading financial newspaper, to write an article about him and his company. And he finagled television coverage on WLS-TV, the ABC flagship station in Chicago. And he supposedly bought coverage in several major national industry publications. So based on your own original research POV supposition, just your own humble opinion, we are supposed to override the clear dictates of WP:BIO, which states that The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person, to include newspaper and articles. Why should we be asked to respond to your mere hunches -- what Wikipedia refers to as Original Research -- and not follow the explicit dictates of the WP:BIO policy? This is not my opinion; this is a direct reference to Wikipedia policy. Alansohn 19:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment the whole thing is just silly. "In one instance, a batch of desks, computers and school supplies with $90,000 originally budgeted, was purchased for $22,000 using the BradsDeals approach" – is this what it takes to make it into Wikipedia these days? The whole article is a blatant ad. Ekjon Lok 11:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Could someone please show me a link to the acutal Wallsreet Journal Article? I'm not finding anything relevant with factiva.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply See this link for a copy of the article. Based on a seacrh in ProQuest, an online search tool available through my library system, I have independently confirmed that the link provided -- in the reference in the article -- is an accurate copy of the full article as it appeared online and corresponds exactly to the article that appeared in the Eastern Edition of the Wall Street Journal on page B8 of the January 4, 2005, issue of the paper. There are several other links to independent verifiable coverage from reliable sources, including coverage by WLS-TV, the ABC flagship station in Chicago included in the article. Alansohn 19:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Emeraude Vyse 13:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Violates WP:SPAM. I despair when I see such poor journalism as the reference article in WSJ, but unfortunately unless we can prove the above was a paid for infomercial, the subject appears otherwise to satisfy WP:BIO. I see no grounds for delete. Cleanup candidate. Ohconfucius 03:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

vote changed to delete. I'm now inclined to think this is indeed spam for a not notable corporation. One or two mentions does not a notable corporation make. I have now seen how journalists churn out company propaganda as their own work. The subject's company is smell beer. Ohconfucius 04:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment but what is he notable for? I repeat, simply being a successful businessman, getting millions, being interviewed by WSJ, is not enough! What noteworthy has he done? Why should he be included in an encyclopedia? Can this entry ever become a real encyclopedic entry, and not just a summary "born such-and-such, educated such-and-such school, founded such-and-such company" etc.? Wikipedia is not a business directory! Ekjon Lok 21:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I can't see that he's actually notable for anyone. Impressive CV, certainly. But lots of non-notable people have those. --SandyDancer 10:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - No. Notability is more than having a blurb in a paper. I can't see he has any thing to be notable for. I can't see anyone expanding this ... vanity article. What's there to expand? --Shrieking Harpy ^Talk|Count 22:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Why is this AfD still open? L0b0t 23:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ekjon Lok Slo-mo 00:04, 9 November 2006 (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.