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. Kurykh ( talk) 05:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Rufus Griscom

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

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

Fails GNG as a subject not covered substantially in multiple, independently published sources of presumed reliability. Claim that "Nerve" magazine was one of the first online magazines is a self-made claim, not bolstered by independent coverage. Article subject has been previously deleted at AfD. Carrite ( talk) 04:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete same as in 2010; not a resume hosting service. Salt too, to avoid recreation this being the third AfD. K.e.coffman ( talk) 07:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment The subject has a chapter devoted in the book by Wharton professor Adam Grant called Originals, a chapter which has been covered by Forbes, Huffington Post, Guardian (Chapter 3 to be precise). [1] [2] [3] The subject's life has been covered by CNN Money, Harvard Business Review et al. I'd like to hear the comments of delete !voters or the nominator on these sources. Thanks. Lourdes 18:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment -- I've stricken my "salt" vote but the article is still promotional and notability is questionable, even after reviewing the book results where the subject is mentioned, but rather superficially. The three articles listed are about the book. The book looks notable, but not every person in it may be notable. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON still. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC) reply

  K.e.coffman hi. The subject here is a journalist. He has created at least two notable works/online magazines: Nerve.com & Babble.com. As per WP:JOURNALIST: A subject may be notable if "the person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work [...] In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book [...]) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." In my opinion, this subject qualifies very easily per this. The Wharton professor's book dedicates a full chapter to him and to his creations. Multiple periodicals and journals, like CNN Money, Harvard Business Review have reviewed the subject and his work too. Why would you disregard coverage like these? What would be your viewpoint about WP:JOURNALIST? And another query: Which lines are promotional in the article, as per you? We can delete those lines quite easily, as I would say the article in its current state does not look overly promotional except for maybe two lines. Waiting for your response. Thanks. Lourdes 03:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Interesting, I've not looked at the subject under WP:JOURNALIST but as a businessman instead (that's how he's being covered in the book). The reason I'd be hesitant to go with a keep is that I'm not sure that the two web sites are notable themselves. I removed a bunch of 'cruft from one of them: diff. So it looks more like a promotional cluster, rather than notable subjects in their own right. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Thanks K.e.coffman. WP:JOURNALIST does not require the work created to be notable but only well-known, a much lower qualification than notable. What matters to WP:JOURNALIST is whether the work has been the primary subject of even a single book (or of other sources). In this case, the work created by the subject is well known (whether or not notable) and has been covered by a book – this is almost a copybook example of WP:JOURNALIST's application. What might be your views on this? Thanks once more. Lourdes 07:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:16, 29 January 2017 (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.