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. Tone 17:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Meckler[edit]

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

Not notable. A web search of Mecklemedia says the company puts together trade shows. Alan Meckler's claim to fame seems to be creating the trade show company and a mutual fund. — Maile (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. Meckler's notability primarily stems from the early part of his career where he was pretty widely known as one of the first internet entrepreneurs and publishers. See particularly, this extensive coverage in Web 2.0 Heroes: Interviews with 20 Web 2.0 Influencers (Bradley Jones, John Wiley & Sons, 2008). Also this entry in Digital Hustlers (Kait and Weiss, Harper Collins, 2009). See also the articles in the "Further reading" section of the article from Bloomberg Businessweek, The Economist, and CBS News. His work in the 1970s–1980s on microform publishing was also fairly influential. This and this are reviews of his 1982 book, Micropublishing: a history of scholarly micropublishing in America, 1938-1980. See also the convoluted company history of Mecklermedia, which in its day was a fairly big business, unlike its current incarnation as an organizer of trade shows. The problem is that the current WP article is basically written as an advertisement for his latest business ventures with inline citations which are almost exclusively to press releases or press release-based pieces. Voceditenore (talk) 06:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The shape of the article is terrible, and there are a lot of dead links, but Voceditenore found good coverage, and my own searches turned up lots of good sources and lots of interesting info passes easily WP:GNG, nominator failed to observe WP:BEFORE Kraxler (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sufficient significant coverage in independent, reliable sources is available to pass WP:BASIC. Due diligence is not optional. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:58, 3 October 2015 (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.