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. Fenix down ( talk) 00:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Daniel Sillman

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

Daniel Sillman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Businessman BLP does not seem to meet WP:NBIO. Notability is inherited from his company Relevent Sports Group and coverage of the individual is largely churnalism articles. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Daniel Sillman is one of the most important soccer executives in the United States as referenced by the sources. He has created international soccer tournaments which has been referenced in NY Times and Sports Illustrated articles. He has produced two major soccer films (individually named as an executive producer) which have been written about in the Guardian and ESPN. In addition, and separated from Relevent, he is a business advisor of Draymond Green as cited by NY Times. And Daniel has received industry awards also cited. Multiple other editors have made edits to the page without issue. The editor in this case is targeting multiple pages that I have edited and has accused me of gaming the system. Following standards, Daniel more than meets requirements and it is unfortunate that one editor seems to be targeting me despite more than proper attribution, etc. Bankrupt305 ( talk) 12:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Which sources do you believe support that WP:GNG is met? Also, please note that WP:PRESERVE discusses article content and is not relevant for deletion discussions. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
IMO, WP:Preserve is relevant and dispositive in deletion discusssion. Ipse dixit doesn't apply to your claim. Read it and make up your own mind. YMMV. Regards, 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 14:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Do you have any evidence supporting your claim that WP:PRESERVE is relevant for article deletion discussions?

And again, which sources do you believe support that WP:GNG is met?

Ipse dixit (IMHO a cheap shot that adds nothing to this discussion) also applies to your arguments currently. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, sources (some added since nomination TBF) appear to show he meets WP:GNG individually. Current refs #2 (New York Business Journal), #5 (SportBusiness Daily) and #15 (Inc.com) all focus on him. Fully agree these aren't national newspapers but he is a businessman and they are business publications (not familiar with them but they look OK to me, seem to be actual entities rather than advertising puff fake sites, but could be wrong). Difficult to quantify his achievements but he is clearly genuinely a CEO of a relatively successful company in a high-profile sector. If that's not deemed enough for a standalone article at present, then it should be Merged into Relevant Sports, as per GNG "If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article". Crowsus ( talk) 23:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • delete - what sources are there that detail signifiant coverage? Giant Snowman 15:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • comment - struggling to find WP:SIGCOV. Anyone have an article from an RS that talks about the subject, rather than just mentioning them? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 22:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Sure Lee Vilenski. Here is one https://www.inc.com/jeff-haden/why-one-of-most-successful-ceos-and-entrepreneurs-youve-never-heard-of-still-thinks-he-has-a-lot-to-learn.html. Bankrupt305 ( talk) 23:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • delete/merge - Tend to agree with nominator and GiantSnowman. After editing the RSG article, in early 2021, I was approached via my Talk page ( discussion) to review a similar draft article ( here). My view then was that it didn't meet GNG or NBIO (too much reliance on RSG PR-derived coverage), and I am not sure that this article does either. Paul W ( talk) 11:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Thank you Paul W ( talk) . Doesn't this article more than satisfy that? Haden, Jeff (May 30, 2019). "Why One of the Most Successful CEOs (and Entrepreneurs) You've Never Heard of Still Thinks He Has a Lot to LearnHe runs Relevent, has invested in a number of companies with high-profile partners, yet few know him. Which may be a secret to his success". Inc. Retrieved January 10, 2022. Also, since you reviewed the last article, there is new news that Daniel is an executive producer of a major Netflix project about Neymar. https://www.orcasound.com/2022/01/03/neymar-the-perfect-chaos-a-netflix-documentary-series/. He's right behind LeBron James and Maverick Carter in the list of Executive Producers. Thank you for your consideration. Bankrupt305 ( talk) 14:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Difficult for me to say. I am a UK-based editor unfamiliar with Inc (and I am wary of interviews as sources as they can be publicist-instigated creations that provide the subject with a platform to make assertions that aren't always reliably fact-checked). I am swayed towards the merge option - perhaps it's WP:TOOSOON and in a few more months we will have more significant reliable independent sourcing. Paul W ( talk) 19:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep passes GNG.-- Ortizesp ( talk) 18:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - while there are several claims above stating that he passes WP:GNG, none have addressed which articles they feel accomplish that. Interviews, being primary, do not count towards notability. And searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 15:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down ( talk) 20:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 20:51, 14 January 2022 (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/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Sillman&oldid=1067341429"