Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Flynn (businessman)

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. Star Mississippi 00:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Flynn (businessman)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Most news seems to be about his company Flynn Group and its restaurants/ acquisitions rather than him. He was briefly in the news regarding the California minimum wage issues and seems to be only known for that. Shinadamina (talk) 05:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Shinadamina (talk) 05:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, United States of America, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is substantial coverage out there about Flynn. The article just has to be expanded. Thriley (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator, most of the articles are about his company or are primary with quotations. The Forbes article and QSR Magazine seem to be the best coverage, but they both contain lot's of quotations and based on primary info. Hkkingg (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep https://www.forbes.com/sites/amyfeldman/2016/08/24/the-super-sizer-how-greg-flynn-became-americas-largest-restaurant-franchisee-with-1-9b-revenues/ shows ample coverage just about him. https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/how-restaurateur-navigating-pandemic talks about him. Dream Focus 18:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Forbes article is OK, but Stanford is an interview. Yolandagonzales (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found this. https://www.entrepreneur.com/franchises/greg-flynn-owns-1245-restaurants-and-makes-2-billion-a/333187 Lot of detail about him. Dream Focus 19:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Entrepreneur article is almost entirely based on quotations, so it is the same as interview and considered unreliable. Rustypenguin (talk) 09:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty written about him, it not just quotes. And interviews are fine for confirming notability. A reliable source thought the person notable enough to write about and/or interview. Interviews are only not seen as reliable for content in an article because they are a primary source. Dream Focus 12:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please share where you have seen that policy that states interviews are fine for notability? I saw someone making this same argument once before, but all participating editors/admins decided there was not such a policy. Rustypenguin (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...Primary sources are excluded for WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, so unless it verifies a claim in the additional criteria (ANYBIO, ENT, SPORTS, etc) I don't see how that would work. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources are usable for content in an article though, for straightforward statements of fact, without undue weight, and with caution if basing longer passages on them. If we had to make a simple statement one way or another (as we loathe to do) PAG is basically the exact other way around. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Forbes articles looks OK. Stanford is an interview. Most other sources are about the company. Notability is not inherited. We should consider making a page for his company The Flynn Group. Yolandagonzales (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The company this individual founded, not the founder himself, is what is notable here. A review of the citations here only shows there are few that provide in-depth coverage of this individual. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only 1 source is in-depth which is Forbes. The rest are interviews or passing mentions. I vote to delete. Rustypenguin (talk) 09:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with above editors. Although there is some news coverage, they are not the right type of coverage. They are mostly interviews, quotations and primary. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Greg-Flynn-Owns-1-245-Restaurants-and-Makes-2-13900429.php SFGate gives significant coverage about him and his accomplishments. Dream Focus 18:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The SFGate Article also contains many quotations and appears to be based on an interview. It is unfortunate that wiki policies do not count interviews towards notability, but we must follow the policies. Rustypenguin (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability. I don't see anywhere against interviews being used to determine notability. Coverage is coverage. A reliable source thought they notable enough to cover, then that counts. Dream Focus 01:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So, the sources are really obvious and are already in the article. I was planning on adding these really in depth and obvious indicators of notability to the article, but they were already there, leaving me perplexed.

These sources are entirely about his life. Yes, they're also going to talk about the company he founded that literally is named after him. The fact that he founded such a successful business is what makes him notable. And, yes, news articles about people are going to include quotes from them. That doesn't make them interview articles. An interview is an article that is entirely just question and response. None of these are that. The claims made by those above would be equivalent to saying Jeff Bezos isn't notable because any article about him is also going to discuss Amazon. It's nonsense. That's not how notability works. Silver seren^C 23:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough of the sources have in depth coverage of Greg Flynn. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Forbes might be OK, I guess, the first few paragraphs look fine, and given it's written by staff it's RS. QSR, I can't see any sign of independent thought. I'm skeptical it even counts as an RS tbh, WTWH seems to be a brand marketing company? Editorial process? Random Entrepreneur contributors are similarly not even RS, at least the Forbes article was written by bylined staff. Even if we pretend both are RS, what's independent isn't significant, and what's significant isn't independent, they're entirely unusable. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:48, 9 May 2024 (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.