Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Fischer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. None of the sources pass WP:V, as noted by several editors in the discussion. —Darkwind (talk) 07:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Fischer[edit]

Phil Fischer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Article about a person that does not establish significance and is written like an advertisement. I've cleaned up a lot of the advertising nonsense, but the whole thing is still like an advertisement for a random person. The article establishes that the person had an interesting life and was a successful business person, but that can be said for far more people than should be on Wikipedia. The only historical significance mentioned is controversial, and, before I got my hands on it, was obviously incorrect. I'm just not seeing the underlying significance here. The references are largely primary sources, which is unacceptable, and greatly degrades the already suffering trustworthiness of the article. Most of the article contains insignificant tidbits, with the only possibly significant section being quite controversial by Wikipedia's standards. —Zenexer [talk] 06:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - At first I was inclined to delete as his music career doesn't appear notable and this is what the article majors on, but he does have notability for his internet marketing career - both as one of the first internet marketers and as a big name in the domaining industry. However the article is promotional and that needs to change. JASpencer (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He's certainly "big" in the domaining industry, but so are quite a few people--far more than would fit on Wikipedia. He was hardly the first, though from the looks of it, he loves to claim that he was. —Zenexer [talk] 02:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG through multiple independent RS'es present in article. Jclemens (talk) 06:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Utter trite. I work in music based articles and I can tell you now, there is nothing there in the music section which fulfills WP:BAND. I would not oppose pulling the whole lot down and starting again, but at the moment just get this garbage off Wikipedia.--Launchballer 08:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I am not clear whether the subject is an evangelist, a musician or a software engineer. I am concerned about the COI and ADVERT issues, but I will accept JASpencer's view on notability. That probably means that the article needs restructuring so that being a musician and an evangelist become subsidiary. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with Peterkingiron and JASpencer. I feel this article doesn't really state why he is notable clearly and think it could do with some work. As mentioned by Launchballer, if the music section isn't notable then perhaps that could be cut down to make the notability clearer. Verdict78 (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the article doesn't state why he is notable this can actually be speedied under WP:A7.--Launchballer 17:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
sorry written in a hurry, should read 'clearly state'. However after reading the entire article, if rephrased I do think it would be a credible article Verdict78 (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I suspect that much of the notability is falsified, along with other information. The sources provided do not indicate notability—they're largely primary—so unless someone can provide better sources, I see no grounds for notability here. The bit of digging that I've done shows that he likes to get his name out there, but doesn't have a whole lot to show for it. Anyone can pay to be on a bunch of news blogs and such. As SEO overlaps with his "notable" background, I wouldn't be surprised if pretty much everything on him Internet-wise is not representative of his notability. A few hard sources—off of the Internet; actually printed—would shatter this theory, but I can't find any. Can he really be that notable in this day and age if there are no properly published works about him? I've dealt with domains plenty, and I've certainly never heard of him until now. —Zenexer [talk] 15:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, not that it's grounds for deletion, but another article, Phil fischer, was deleted three times. This is the fourth reincarnation of this article. —Zenexer [talk] 15:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RHaworth has very kindly restored those revisions to this page for at least the duration of this AfD if it interests anybody.--Launchballer 11:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just an observation, but he has featured in Miami Business Magazine, Silicon Valley Reporter, Northwest Magazine and The Sacramento Union just quickly running through his references, one of which is a printed reference. I would say that the sources provided establish he's a successful businessman. Verdict78 (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Miami Business Magazine, Silicon Valley Reporter, and NorthWest Magazine are all fronts for a "public relations" company. The articles are all marked as paid advertisements. See new section below. I can't find anything related to The Sacramento Union involving Phil Fischer. —Zenexer [talk] 07:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The material in the Miami Business Magazine seems like pure gossip, and gives me an impression of utter unreliability ( some guys met in a bar....) The NW Marketing story is a straightforward advertisement apparently written by the subject. SV Reporter gave me a 404 error. These are not the sort of sources we can use for a BLP. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The Silicon Valley Reporter isn't a 404 deadlink, just tried it. See note below Arnold568 (talk) 09:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I feel that Fischer is notable. The silicon valley reporter and Sacramento Union are perfectly notable article. As for the other sources that have been rubbished, I think they are pretty credible references and this is why they were used originally, but yes the article might need some improvement after reading the points made here. The article states Fischer went platinum in South America with one of his albums. Secondly it's clear to me that his business career has had some pretty notable points, the ownership of the domains been pretty crucial in this. In regards to references, I'd say something somewhere will have been printed about this, but I'm not sure how you'd source a printed newspaper from the 1980's personally. I think to comment delete with the information available is a hasty decision personally. Arnold568 (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Using {{Cite journal}}.--Launchballer 10:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is a Featured article. Someone paid to have it published. In other words, it's an ad. It's allegedly written by one Sharon Patton--who, apparently, is Phil Fischer's mother. Like I said, this smells of "phony". —Zenexer [talk] 06:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This person passes GNG and is notable for his marketing work. I think the other stuff could be kept under his personal life.—stinkyegg (talk) 08:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps we need to call in an administrator, because someone is clearly trying to manipulate the notability of this person. See the note about the "Featured" article above. —Zenexer [talk] 06:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added #List of potentially notable sources to objectify this. —Zenexer [talk] 07:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Curiously, Northwest Public Relations is located in Washington, Phil Fischer's home state. A Phillip Fischer (not necessary the same one, but it appears to be) was CEO of a similarly named company, Northwest Online. Archive.org has a seemingly solid description in Phil Fischer's words of his achievements. If we're looking for an unbiased history of Phil Fischer, ironically, I think that's the best we're going to get. It seems he was relatively successful, but the success was short-lived, and perhaps not on par with our notability standards. —Zenexer [talk] 07:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the "best" sources are Northwest Magazine, Silicon Valley Reporter and Miami Business Magazine. According to their terms and conditions, all three are owned by "Noth West Public Relations" [sic]. Quote: "You warrant, understand, and agree that Owner is providing this Website for use by those who wish to utilize the public relations, search engine optimization and online reputation management products and services provided by Owner." Those are not reliable sources; they're paid PR. I also find it hard to assume good faith when multiple editors with less than a hundred edits each appear and try to convince us that the above are reliable, independent sources. Huon (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a company that specializes in creating fake users to support their clients on popular sites. Perhaps this page should at least be protected? —Zenexer [talk] 07:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of potentially reliable sources[edit]

I'm adding this because people seem tripped up by the "paid" sources. —Zenexer [talk] 06:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Huon, who discovered that many of these publishers are publicly owned by Northwest Public Relations. A visit to this site indicates that they specialize in falsifying notability, for a variety of reasons. —Zenexer [talk] 07:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable[edit]
Reliable[edit]
None so far; check back later
Comments[edit]
  • Notability regards articles, not sources; you're thinking of reliability. If there are that many Phil Fischers then why not craft a disambiguation page out of it?--Launchballer 09:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are the most common way of establishing notability. These sources were mistakenly being used for that purpose. They are also required for a valid article, and seeing as we can find no valid sources, this is not a valid article. There are 2-3 other Phil Fischers who, at first glance, appear to be somewhat notable. Feel free to make a disambiguation page, but you'll need content to disambiguate. —Zenexer [talk] 10:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Some very interesting points made recently, ones I didn't notice when creating the article. However, I've tried the Northwest Magazine terms and conditions that a couple of people seem to be talking about and see nothing about a Northwest Relations?

The Sacramento Union does seem to be a credible paper (no longer printing) and the author also seems to be credible. I think we need to be careful presuming if someone did/didn't write an article without any proof and also presume that the articles were paid releases without any proof. Until someone can prove they were paid releases or that the Sacramento article doesn't exist they should be taken on good faith as Wikipedia doesn't work on presumption, we need evidence. Newspapers are really struggling in the United States, so it's no surprise they don't bother to "archive" all of their content. As with the Sacramento Union, many are out of business and never maintained archives.

The Kamloops Daily News is credible and I took the time to call and verified the story of the subject starting the British Columbia Contractors Association.

I personally have purchased Northwest Magazine in news stands when I visited Seattle as recent as 2009. I admit it was loaded with ads for tourists and few serious articles but I seriously doubt its owned by a PR firm. I am under the impression that some just don't want the subject to have a page for reasons we will never know. Arnold568 (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google Cache still has the terms and conditions as they were publicly displayed less than 24 hours ago: [1] [2][3] Today, after I have brought them up in this discussion, they have changed. I find it very hard to believe in coincidence here. Huon (talk) 02:50, 27 September 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Phil_Fischer&oldid=1085516629"