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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Peter Shankman

Peter Shankman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Possibly notable as author, but only reviews I can find are PW and Booklist, nothing in newspapers that I can access. As for his entrepreneur cred, there is this 1998 article when he was "pre-success". But I don't find anything else other than the brief quotes. I think this fellow is marginal in terms of notability. LaMona ( talk) 17:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 17:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 17:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Jgreene1333 ( talk) 00:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)I'd disagree. Shankman is very notable, just seems to have an underwritten Wikipedia entry, which I've been updating. I've added numerous keynotes, CNN appearances, and more information on the companies he's founded, and sold. reply

Thanks, Jgreene1333, I'll be interested to see what you come up with. As full disclosure, however, I should note that you are the creator and primary editor on this article. LaMona ( talk) 01:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Jgreene1333 ( talk) 19:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)Sure - I've added 13 media appearances on CNN and Fox, as well as 9 significant keynoting events over the last year, and can easily double or triple that as I keep going, so I'd think he'd definitely qualify as notable :) (and also have a very under built out page, previously). reply

Thanks, User:Jgreene1333, however those do not fit into the WP guidelines for notability. Notability is based on what other people (independent third-parties) have said about the subject, and none of those address that. LaMona ( talk) 16:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete for now as none of the suggests even minimally better general notability but draft and userfy if needed. Jgreene1333, I would also suggest using the "show "preview" as this will alleviate the need of clicking "edit" again so many times and also alleviate servers and history logs exhaustion. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply

SwisterTwister Sorry for unncessary edits - there are number of better general notability links that I'll put up there once I have them drafted :)

Significantly updated with many more resources and profiles. Jgreene1333 ( talk) 13:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

So now we've been ref-bombed. I removed the use of his own books as references -- his writings should not be referenced, but you can add ISBNs which then become links to sources for the books. You have added references to his speaking engagements, but those are not about him. The one potentially notable thing, the NASA advisory, is not validated in the ref you provide. Smack media is an promotion agency, thus not an independent source. Unfortunately what you've done is increase the promotional aspect of this article, which is the opposite of what is needed. Also, there is still the matter of the photograph, which you uploaded to Commons as "own work" - although it appears to be a professional photograph. LaMona ( talk) 18:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

LaMona - I'm unclear if the issue with NASA advisory panel was that the title needed to cited exactly, which I've updated, but he is listed on the PDF that is the reference, under the committee. I've removed the picture until I can post additional documentation about it. There are a number of profiles listed about him, including Crain's New York, and others. I can take down Smack Media, and find an additional source for that story. Jgreene1333 ( talk) 20:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

The "issue" with the NASA advisory panel is that the article says "He was appointed to this position by NASA Administrator Charles Bolden." The reference is just a list of members of the panel -- nothing else. So the only thing that is verifiable is that he was a member of that panel on that date. You can request permission of a copyright holder to attach a free license to a work, such as a photograph. See template. Profiles do not attest to notability -- they are not independent of the subject (subject often provides the information). LaMona ( talk) 01:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC) reply

LaMona - I've replaced the Smack Media reference with an independent reference. All of the books have been re'cited with ISBN numbers. I've added (current citation 36) another NASA release speaking about the establishment of the committee. Also have added several references from the NY Times, and removed several tangential. Working on the photo. Jgreene1333 ( talk) 16:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply

I don't know how to explain to you that more ref-bombing isn't helping your case. The more you add insignificant and non-reliable sources, the worse you subject looks. The "profiles" are 1) interviews 2) blog posts or personal website. Ref #40 is about someone else and is just a name-check for Shankman. Being know for tweet-gags isn't one of our notability criteria. Getting into a pissing contest with a blogger also isn't a route to notability. Being mentioned in articles is not the same as being "featured." You really need to reduce this down to what makes him notable. Adding more non-reliable sources is not working. LaMona ( talk) 19:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• delete insufficient coverage in independent sources. - üser:Altenmann >t 22:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm confused - there's plenty of coverage in independent sources, the issue seems to be with the formatting, not with the existence of coverage of Shankman - Jgreene1333 ( talk) 16:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Not all coverage is equal. Mentions are not "coverage". Articles about other people and other things that have his name in them in one place is not "coverage." Not all sources attest to notability. I feel like I've said this many times to you, and don't know what it will take to get the point across. Marketing materials are neither independent nor reliable. A source saying that he spoke at a conference or meeting does not confer notability. I think it is very important for you to understand the concept of notability used by WP because you do create and edit other articles, not just this one, and you are spending time adding non-reliable sources to an article, which is a waste of both your time and the time of anyone who is reviewing the article. This is not a good thing for Wikipedia and its volunteers. LaMona ( talk) 17:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC) reply

LaMona I hear you and am working on improving it. I appreciate your patience, and should have it cleaned up in the way you suggest within the next day. Jgreene1333 ( talk) 18:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Following up, I'm continuing to update the page with sources to highlight notability, and removing the types that have been flagged. Thanks. Jgreene1333 ( talk) 12:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm generally quite patient, but I'm beginning to lose it. You have added links but removed none, and the links you have added do not support notability. I may give this a bit of time before I just do the edits myself, but basically all of the links to his TV appearances are wp:primary and do not belong in the article. (Basically, #s15-25) Mentions and short quotes (e.g. #13, 14, 4, 6, 28) do not support notability -- delete those. One-off stunts (25, 26, 27) do not support notability. Delete those as well. When you have done this, you should have maybe a half a dozen references, but all of them may be good. At that point, it will be worth asking others to review the article. And, like I say, I can give you only a short amount of time on this because I've already given this about two weeks of my time, and I'm about at the "cut to the chase" point. LaMona ( talk) 20:51, 30 December 2015 (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.