Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Starks (2nd nomination) - Wikipedia

Article Images

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. Does not pass WP:GNG.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Still fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 16:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles like this and this have enough content on Starks that I feel they pass WP:SIGCOV. The sourcing here is good enough to meet WP:GNG, IMO. NemesisAT (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One is an annoucement of taking the job and one is an annoucement of promotion. Both are interviews and both are primary. They are no secondary sources. scope_creep^Talk 16:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews can count towards establishing notability if there is sufficient content outside of quotes, and I believe that is the case here. NemesisAT (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not for a BLP. They are PR interviews and primary. scope_creep^Talk 16:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
Ref 1 is a 40 under 40 x of y article. Non-RS. They're everywhere now.
Ref 2 [1] Jazz president Steve Starks promoted to CEO of all Larry H. Miller companies, search underway for new team president A routine annoucement of employement.
Ref 3 [2] Jazz president named new CEO for Larry H. Miller Group An short interview.
Ref 4 [3] Wunderkind takes over LHM Sports & Entertainment, years after Miller hired him in an elevator A longer interview.
Ref 5 [4] Steve Starks Named Chief Executive Officer For Larry H. Miller Group Of Companies A routine annoucement being named to the position.
Ref 6 [5] Another reference being named to the position.
Ref 7 [Utah Jazz president to speak at chamber ‘Inspiration Luncheon] A routine annoucement
Ref 8 [6] A 40 under 40 recepipeince award x of y type article for an award. It is non-notable. These x of y sites have exploded in recent years. They are effectively non-rs as references.

There is 8 references, 5 are the same news of getting the position, 1 is non-notable award, and 2 are primary source, they both fail WP:SIRS, as they are both related to the company. They're is no secondary sources on this article and it is a BLP. It fails WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:SIGCOV a scope_creep^Talk 15:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a borderline case, but I don't think the sources establish that the WP:ANYBIO threshold is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. Was notable before. Notability is not transitory. Important both as an executive and as a political operative. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "before" link does not show it was found to be notable, since the outcome was "no consensus". MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- low quality RS, mostly local press. IMHO The RS doesn't establish notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the sources are sufficient to show notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The keep side has failed to demomonstrate why the article should be kept when it has no secondary source failing WP:BLPPRIMARY. They show he exists but not why he is notable. Another ref has been added to the article in attempt to meet WP:HEY but it another 40 under 40 x of y article ref, essentially the same reference as ref 1. There is no secondary sources added to the article, because they're is none. The policy at WP:BLP is clear that you should be very firm on the use of good source. scope_creep^Talk 16:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article does not have much reliable sources and not notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page. I do not see any secondary sources as well. HelpingWorld (talk) 04:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 09:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another reference has been added to the article, specifically Utah Jazz president to speak at chamber ‘Inspiration Luncheon’. This is another routine annoucement and is primary and lacks depth. No single reference in the article can support a BLP. scope_creep^Talk 12:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability has not been established, per source analysis above. Previous AfD can be disregarded, since it had just one !voter and resulted in no consensus. Anyway, it was an undisclosed paid creation by Lesbianadvocate that would have qualified for G5 speedy if nominated a bit earlier. MarioGom (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If you actually read the sources on this guy, those used in his article, and some others on reliable sources online you will see that despite their titles these sources are in fact offering in-depth biographical information in the voice of the publications. The COI angle is out of play as their have been many intervening edits. These are not just routine notices and pure interviews. 80.247.89.52 (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editor is a WP:SPA who has made only eight edits to Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 20:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, they could be on a changing IP address. NemesisAT (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MarioGom and scope creep. Levivich 06:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage is limited to trivial announcements, non-independent sources and non-notable awards, insufficient for demonstrating the suitability of this article on a LP. Avilich (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2021 (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.