Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Collins 2

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 keep. -- RG² 02:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Collins

Brian Collins (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable person. Being a "distinguished alumni" and speaking in conferences is no reason to be included in an encyclopedia. He isn't even published. As far as I can tell, thousands of university professors across the globe are much more notable. The page seems more like a resume than anything informative. - mc machete 10:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This is the third AFD for this subject. It did not pass the first two nominations. I don't believe there is any new content in the article now that would make it worth saving. Does not pass WP:BIO, maybe this should be salted to prevent recreation. --Cyrus Andiron 14:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Have you read the article? This is about a completely different Brian Collins. This is about a Professor and Business leader, and not an internet phenomena. I suggest you actually read the article please. Woodym555 14:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 14:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, agree with Woodym555, this is a different person altogether. The Ogilvy and Mather position makes him notable enough (barely). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, (as an editor of the article. I was drafted in after a request on the help desk) Notability is shown by the third party sources included in the article. The fact that it reads like a resume is not a reason for deletion, that is a reason for an "advert" tag which it already has. I think the fact that he has been on several award juries, that he is the head of "BIG" and is the subject of numerous articles written about him. I don't think his role as professorship would automatically make him notable under Wikipedia:Notability (academics) although i would argue that "The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known" Within the advertising world he is very well-known. His body of work is known as his involvement with his education schemes. Collectively i would argue that this means his article should be kept. Woodym555 15:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

On award juries? He runs a company? By such standards, more than half my family and a good handful of friends are wiki-worthy. I see you have since added some industry-specific references. I'm still not satisfied he's worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Maybe if there were an advertising industry wiki... --mc machete 17:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, wikipedia is not limited to the extent of a paper encyclopedia. The status and size of the company need to be taken into account and his actions within that company. Owning a small corner shop is different to running one of the largest advertising agencies in the world that is responsible for some of the most recognised brands and campaigns in the world. Also Award juries relates to the status of the juries as well. To be part of a High School jury committee and being on the jury committee of an industry wide recognised award are two completely different things.

This person is covered in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Admitteddly i have been adding to it throughout the day. Yet all it would have taken was some google searching to get them. I think his work for Ogilvy and Mather, BIG and his status backed up by reliable sources means that the article should remain. Woodym555 19:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That's amazing that you immediately assumed "small shop" and "high school jury committee." Not that it matters, but I was referring to heads of multi-million dollar global corporations, authors, script writers of multi-million dollar blockbusters, etc. They don't seem notable enough for inclusion, and I feel neither is Brian Collins. The key here is exactly what you said: "industry wide recognised." He only seems notable within his own industry. My initial points remain. I think this does not belong. --mc machete 20:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course people are notable within their own industry. that;'s the very point of notability . the leading figures in advertising are notable. DGG (talk) 03:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep although the article is woefully self-aggrandizing. Collins is pretty clearly notable within advertising/branding circles. Cleanup for the advert tone, attribute claims about him properly (e.g. "Ad Age says that...") and so forth. We just need to list how he's viewed, not run down everything he or somebody working for him ever touched. --Dhartung | Talk 20:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO. --Sc straker 00:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It seems like this is a debate less about Collins' accomplishments than about what Wikipedia should be about. I look to Wikipedia to give me more than Encyclopedia Britannica and provide information about folks who would never make it into a paper version. Collins is without a doubt one of the most influential voices today in shaping how we see and perceive goods and ideas in a market based economy. I am the original author of this article, and as one of my first entries, maybe my tone was off and not appropriate for Wiki. The tone can be edited. Also, self-aggrandizing assumes that the individual posted his own listing, which is not the case. I think that this article is certainly worthy of inclusion in a virtual encyclopedia. Jimmysmith100 —Preceding comment was added at 19:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Full disclosure:Jimmysmith100 (talk · contribs) was the original author of the article. Woodym555 19:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep I dont think he's notable as an academic primarily, but as an advertising figure, based on his accomplishments, which seem to be documented.DGG (talk) 04:09, 27 October 2007 (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.