Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Rampton (3rd nomination)

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. Transparent attempt at vote-stacking noted and disregarded. Mackensen (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Rampton

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Non notable businessman. He lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. Quotes from him are not coverage about him. Sources from first afd are trivial mentions. Sources from the article are mostly primary. Other provide only quotes from him. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a contributor to various websites is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Aside from being an authority author, a Google search on John Rampton turned up a lot tier1 news coverage on him, which I'll add to the article. --Prowp (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any eta on when you will add this coverage to the article? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, already added a handful of solid references, and just added more now. --Prowp (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. You'se bombarded it with primary sources, quotes from him and short mentions from silly lists turning it into more of an advert. But I guess that's par for course for shills on Wikipedia these days. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's plenty of reliable coverage on John Rampton to meet notability. Speedy Keep. Progalaxy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's your going rate for vote stacking? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason why this would even be an issue. Asdfsadfsadfsadfsad (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he is definitely a notable author. A quick search on Google provides significant coverage that should warrant this being kept. Thelmz (talk) 12:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to all the shills trying to vote stack here. AfDs are not head counts. You actually have to give real reasons. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll chime in. Not sure what gives you the right to make the accusation that I'm a shill, but anyway this page meets WP:CREATIVE, which states "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Rampton has been cited in the Wall Street Journal, The Seattle Times , Inc. Magazine, among a dozen other business publications. In addition, he also meets WP:ANYBIO, which states "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." Rampton has been recognized as a leading entrepreneur and marketer in his field on numerous reliable publications such Forbes, Entrepreneur Magazine Mashable, among a handful of others. So this page easily meets the criteria for notability. Prowp (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quoted, yes. Cited, No. Inclusion on those silly lists is not a well-known and significant award or honor. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never knew articles on Mashable and Forbes are silly, not until now. You might want to ask yourself a few questions: 1. Has Rampton received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has he been nominated for one several times? 2. Has he made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his specific field? If yes, then your nomination based on notability is null and void as he meets WP:ANYBIO. And you might want to read [this] please. Thelmz (talk) 09:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete considering policy WP:NOT as this is a blatant advertisement and the Keep are also not substantiating themselces to policy. SwisterTwister talk 07:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are either non-RS / primary sources / written by the subject. None of these help to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. We require reliable secondary sources and I don't see enough here. I am also concerned at the vote stacking happening here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2016 (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.