Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Pompe

Scott Pompe

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

Contested PROD. Article about a media executive that seems like a clear case of WP:BLP1E. The person's notability cannot be established, and 3/4 of the article itself is about a court case, that while mildly interesting, would also fail WP:NOT#NEWS, assuming the article had been written about the case itself instead of attempting to be a bio. This was apparently created as an offshoot of Gellman v. Tribune Company, so short of deletion a redirect to that would be indicated instead. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 15:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, another attempt by someone to create a bio about themselsves. Master Xandred (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Undecided, leaning towards delete. I do agree that it seems like a BLP1E, but I noticed that the court case was also notable enough to have an article, which could imply coverage on the person himself (but not necessarily). However, I did notice that the articles on the case and the person were created by the same person.^King Jakob _C2 23:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (do not delete). I appreciate eagerness and diligence of FreeRangeFrog. However, this page should stay up. Reason #1) I am personally interested in cataloguing people who run large media companies. Media companies heavily influence culture across the globe. Across Wikipedia I see countless profiles of business executives. I am very interesting in contributing to this already-existing type of Wikipedia page. Reason #2) Rather than delete it, let's encourage the Wikipedia community to improve it. The deletion-patrol should spend more time proposing deletions for the thousands of poorly-written, half-hearted articles that I've seen across Wikipedia. I'd be proud to volunteer. Reason #3) Master Xandred - I am not Scott Pompe. I do not know him. I do not work for him. Do you want me to fax you my ID? Respectfully, your argument is false. Reason #4) Let me share a quote with you."Once a year, Hundreds of participants from around the globe, Meet at the central conference of the Wikimedia movement - to create a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." From "Wikimania 2013", which is advertised heavily on Wikipedia (http://wikimania2013.wikimedia.org/wiki/Registration. Friends, please study the last 5 words of that quote. "The sum of all knowledge." Thank you for reading. Respectfully, Guinnessjerry44 (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guiness... While I sincerely appreciate your interest in businesses executives, none of your reasons are valid for our purposes here, which is simply to determine if Scott Pompe is notable, which is the policy-based test we use to determine if a subject qualifies for its own article. Your overall message is equivalent to saying that you shouldn't be arrested if you steal someone's old Cadillac because you really like Cadillacs, it can be worked on to make it really nice, and there are a lot of other people who steal Cadillacs. But the fact is, you broke the law and therefore should be arrested. And all the others who stole Cadillacs should be arrested too. So, yes, there is a lot of other crap on Wikpedia that needs to be deleted, but that in no way justifies keeping this "crap". (smile) As for reason #3, it actually doesn't matter one bit whether you are Scott Pompe or not because he still would need to pass Wikipedia's notability test. The key words in "the sum of all knowledge" are the sum of. It is not the goal of this encylopedia (or any other) to share all knowledge, but rather the knowledge in each topic area that meets the high standards of notability. Please read WP:PEOPLE. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guiness... for the record, Master Xandred never accused you of being Scott Pompe. He said, "another attempt by someone to create a bio about themselsves."[1] User:Allisoncornish is the creator of the article,[2] not you. Unless that account is you, also. So your reason #3 doesn't make sense. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly not notable per WP:PEOPLE and WP:BLP1E. Here's the full lead: "Scott Pompe is an American media executive. He currently the senior vice president at a media company. Senior Vice President at Newspaper Data Exchange, a media company. Scott earned his degree from the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point. He lives in the Los Angeles area with his family." What part of that (or anything else in the article) makes him notable? We have a VP-level employee who was involved in a lawsuit. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't believe this article will survive, it should be noted that the bulk of the article is about the lawsuit. This is a bio, not an event. Should the article miraculously survive, the lawsuit content would need to be cut way down. This is not a newspaper. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Gellman v. Tribune Company should be deleted, too. Someone should do that. It's nothing more than a wrongful termination lawsuit that was dismissed. The only reason it was covered at all is because the suit was against a major newspaper publisher. But in terms of notability, it's a nothing event. What we have is an article about a fired employee who made allegations against his former employer. Whether the claims were true or not is meaningless for our purposes. Anyone can make allegations and file a lawsuit, so that in itself is most certainly not encylopedic. It should also be noted that the same editor created both the Pompe and Gellman articles. And as far as Pompe's involvement in the lawsuit, he was merely named as one of several defendants. These articles clearly do not belong on Wikipedia. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gellman v. Tribune Company if there is any salvageable information, delete if there isn't. Although I will say that if there is enduring coverage on an event, I don't think it matters why there is coverage.^King Jakob _C2 19:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jakob, although I think Gellman v. Tribune Company is clearly not notable and should be deleted, I just did an overhaul on it to give it an encylopedic tone and layout. It was a mess. So now it looks good, but unfortunately it's not notable at all. Haha. It needs to go, but I thought at least it should be properly written until that happens. ;) --76.189.111.199 (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for my comment about enduring coverage was that from your comment ("The only reason it was covered at all...") implied there was coverage. Apparently not. But whether Gellman v. Tribune Company survives or not should be a topic for another AFD. So if Gellman v. Tribune company (somehow) survives its own AFD, then I'd say to merge it in (someone above said Scott Pompe's article is mostly about the lawsuit anyway). But if Gellman v. Tribune company gets deleted, then I'd be all for deleting Scott Pompe's article because there'd be nothing to merge it into.^King Jakob _C2 21:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, thanks for the clarification. Well, there was limited coverage. Feel free to tag the Gellman article for deletion or just take it straight to AfD. It would make sense to deal with both of these articles at the same time. ;) Btw, I did a major cleanup of Scott Pompe, too. It was also a mess. So, like the Gellman article, it looks good now and is layed out in an encylopedic manner, but there's no notability. Haha. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; subject does not appear to be notable, as the subject himself has not appeared to receive significant coverage from multiple non-reliable sourcse where the subject is the primary subject of the content of the source. Therefore the subject fails WP:ANYBIO; being an executive of a notable company does not make an individual inherintly notable. I am not commenting about the notability of the case (Gellman v. Tribune Company), that should be done through another AfD if others wish to start such a process.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]