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The result was Keep, withdrawn by the nominator (non-admin closure). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Fertik[edit]

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

Article has been marked for notability concerns for three years. I note that the current page relies heavily on primary sources, extremely low-quality sources and sources that are better-incorporated into the Reputation.com article. Quick searches do not reveal any indication he meets the bar for an article. CorporateM (Talk) 01:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE, a lot of this person's notability is inherited from the Reputation.com article. It would be better suited to be redirected and merged there. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 22:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Google suggests there's a recent NYTimes article about him that hasn't been incorporated. Fix and keep?BennyHillbilly (talk) 09:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT It appears there were concerns about the quality of sources. As a start, I have added three New York Times articles about the subject (each with a photo that is not properly licensed for use here). I am abstaining from voting due to a non-financial COI, but I hope the new sources have improved the article.Sunnymale (talk) 07:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That helps, but it looks like the New York Times sources are Q&As or tips-focused. They do help establish that he has attracted notice from reliable sources, but they don't provide much content for the article. CorporateM (Talk) 13:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT I think CorporateM raises some good points, so I have further updated the article. Again, I have a declared non-financial COI so I'm not going to vote, but I believe CorporateM's issues have been addressed. As to notability, the article now links to articles about Fertik in the New York Times, Forbes, The Chicago Sun-Times, and a few others, plus some TV profiles (such as 20/20). That should be enough under WP:BIO to show multiple reliable independent sources (full articles with photos about him in more than 3 national print publications plus some TV), but there's also the role in World Economic Forum, the book he published, and his columns for Inc., HBR blogs, and the Washington Post. Each of those (WEF, bestselling book, columns) doesn't prove notability by itself, but in combination it should get across the hump under the secondary WP:BIO criteria even without the publications. As to the quality of sources, I agree that it wasn't great originally. I've tried to add profiles from third-party sources (Businessweek, Inc., Harvard Magazine, etc.) on major facts. I don't think it's perfectly sourced yet, but it's at least improving. Sunnymale (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like he may in fact meet the bar. I'm going to give the article a once-through and see what we have. CorporateM (Talk) 14:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: I withdraw my nomination. Sunnymale has provided adequate sources to validate his notability. Additionally, the sources say that he pioneered the field of online reputation management, that he has won a notable award, and they include details like where he went to college that are not appropriate for a merge to the company page. I will do some more work on it to make sure it complies with our standards. CorporateM (Talk) 14:47, 11 April 2014 (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.