Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Kwatinetz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Wizardman 15:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Kwatinetz

Jeff Kwatinetz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Prod was removed. Subject fails WP:BIO, particularly "a relationship with A does not make B famous" - his company represents certain artists, but even the news reports that the company has not done well, which means the company is therefore not really notable, so Kwatinetz isn't notable for running it. The main "notability" item in the article is that Britney Spears dropped her association with Kwatinetz's company, which again is not an indication of notability on Kwatinetz's part. The older news coverage cited by the person who rm'ed the prod is more about Kwatinetz's intents with his company through the business model than anything he himself has done, the stories are often duplicated, and so-called "revolutionary ideas" that don't work aren't really notable. MSJapan (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. Notability has nothing to do with success or failure of his enterprise, only with the extent to which he is covered by reliable sources. As I pointed out when I deprodded this there are hundreds of these in the Google News archive, most of which make no mention of Britney Spears. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This managers representation of high profile entertainers makes him notable. The article does need some work and more sources though.--Rtphokie (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, coverage by multiple reliable sources = notability, regardless of success. There are three in the article and hundreds more on Google News Archive. No basis for deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 20:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This article can be a reliable source to wikipedia. I also do not see any or much non-wikipedia policies. I do suggest expanding it and maybe cleanup.--RyRy5 talk 21:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Say again? Are you trying to say that Wikipedia itself is a reliable source? If not, it looks an awful lot like WP:ITSUSEFUL. Neither would be valid keep rationales.
  • Weak delete - seems to have a few sources, but the CEO is not notable, only the company itself. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 23:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Actually I would say that it is the other way round - the company is simply a vehicle for Kwatinetz's activities. 176 of the Google News hits[1] (nearly half of the total) don't even bother to mention the name of his company. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2008 (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.