Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Snyder
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 13:30, 6 February 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 13:30, 6 February 2022 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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. Jujutacular talk 12:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pete Snyder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article had been tagged for speedy deletion per CSD G11; I declined the speedy because the page does not look unambiguously and exclusively promotional. But due to the rationale given for the speedy tag per the respective edit summary in the article's revision history, I felt that I should take this article to AfD for discussion. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Delete. Article was created by NMS Bill, a now-inactive editor who discloses that Pete Snyder is his employer. Of the sources cited, the few reputable third-party ones substantiate an article about Snyder's company, not the man himself. Does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 03:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Just following up on the note above, I think a valid point is made regarding the sourcing. The article is not quite up-to-date, and as a result it happens to omit multiple reliable sources which have published articles primarily about the individual. These sources should be of help in properly establishing Notability:
- The Washington Post (Aug. 2008) (similar version published in print edition)
- Washingtonian Magazine (Oct. 2006)
- Bloomberg BusinessWeek profile (listed under key executives of Meredith Corp)
- Washington Life Magazine (May 2010)
- TV News Check (Nov. 2010)
- The New York Times (in brief, Nov. 2010)
- US News & World Report (July 2010)
- Media Bistro (Nov. 2010)
- I would update the article with some of these sources (the Washington Post article is most relevant in establishing WP:N); however in seeking to best uphold Wikipedia's COI policies (the subject of the article is the president of my present employer) I felt it ideal to leave such decisions up to others independent of the subject. On the same accord, I leave this as a comment instead of a keep/delete. Hope that this additional information and context is helpful and constructive in evaluating the article at hand. --Jeff Bedford (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- References provided show longterm coverage by broad major WP:RS with little overlap of content, some understandably longer than others; establishes WP:N. Dru of Id (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on the sources provided by Jeff if an appropriate selection are added to the article. --joe deckertalk to me 05:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - some of the article have passing mentions, such as this brief mention, but overall I think there's enough for WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2011 (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.