Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Jankowski (author)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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. Promotional with suspicion of undisclosed paid editing. Randykitty (talk) 11:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Jankowski (author)

[edit]
Paul Jankowski (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of several articles submitted by a single new contributor that all appear to be biographies of individuals who are not notable. The many references in this article obscure the lack of any single claim of notability, and appear to lack independence. It does not appear to me that there would be anything left if we clean up the article. UninvitedCompany 23:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Adweek piece is not a single paragraph: only a single paragraph is available for free online without subscribing to Adweek. A lot of journalism is based on press releases: Yahoo! used their editorial control to decide to run with the piece, so this is an WP:RS piece. Bondegezou (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, Yahoo running a press release doesn't automagically make it NOT a press release. --Calton | Talk 04:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no blanket ban on Wikipedia against RS pieces that began with press releases. Bondegezou (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The 2012 Yahoo piece [1] is datelined: (Nashville, (Marketwire -08/14/12). Note that according to Wikipedia: "Marketwire "is a press release distribution service." This is a press release written In Nashville by Jankowski or his firm in and distributed by Marketwire. Not a RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 08:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • respond. The 2012 Ad Week piece [2] is, as Bondegezou says, more than paragraph. The rest is paywalled. I am still not seeing sufficient WP:SIGCOV here to keep. Plus article is utter WP:PROMO. Also note that page is an orphan, sole link is disambig from page about a professor with the same name, and that before this AfD the page got a negligible number of views [[3]]. On Twitter this "brand strategist" has ~600 followers. These are not metrics we use, but they sure don't indicate that he's a very big deal in the world. I searched for him in WSJ, and found only a review of a book by the notable historian with this name, so I added the review to the professor's page. Then I searched NYTimes.com and found several articles about the historian, and one about a Polish diplomat. A Proquest news archive search turned up multiple articles about the historian, some about the diplomat, and an avalanche of articles in the Chicago papers about a school superintendent with this name. Plus an article in The Commercial Appeal (major regional newspaper in Memphis) in which our boy is interviewed because he was " Elvis Presley Enterprises chief marketing officer." Only an abstract shows on Proquest. Perhaps this is a brand promoter with regional notability? Dunno, but I'm not seeing it. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC
Thank you for a thorough examination, but I didn't find it persuasive of your position. AfD is, of course, not clean up. Being an orphan or failing PROMO are reasons for clean up, not deletion, unless you are suggesting that the article is so flawed that we are in TNT territory? Number of Twitter followers is irrelevant. You appear to have found an additional article in support of GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia advice these days is to avoid calling something a vanity article: see WP:VANITY. I had a look at the edit history of the person who created this article. Best I can tell, the person who created this article is not Paul Jankowski and is not a WP:SPA. However, there are only a few edits and they don't fit any simple pattern, so it is possible that they were operating with a WP:COI. They do not appear to be active at present and haven't participated in this debate. Bondegezou (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fact check This page was created by an editor who had a brief career during which he created 4 articles, three of which have been deleted [4]. the 4 articles were of similar length when created (~8,000 words,) each was deleted as PROMO, and all were about individuals with careers in marketing/product promotion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with that. Bondegezou (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2019 (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/Paul_Jankowski_(author)&oldid=878018302"