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 speedy delete. per G5 per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MassiveYR but I also note that there is a consensus here to delete as well. SmartSE (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Goldstuck[edit]

Charles Goldstuck (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)

Fails the criteria for notability. References have no substance and/or are not intellectually independent. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Subject of article fails primary notability requirements such as WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Furthermore, references provided in the aforementioned article do not substantiate the articles claims or subject in any way. Almost as if the article's creator is entirely oblivious of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies as regards establishing notability.Celestina007 (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've found some coverage on him like here & here. Mr RD 17:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both of those are company announcements and are therefore considered PRIMARY sources. Primary sources do not count towards notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Found much better sources on him here and here. He's behind the modern jukebox so am sure there are more primary sources on him out there. Krada123 (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I cannot access the bloomberg article - perhaps you could summarise what is said about Goldstuck? From the snippets I have managed to find culled from the article, it appears that the article relies on an interview with Goldstuck or a series of quotations at the very least. This *may* be considered a PRIMARY source and *may* not be considered allowable for the purposes of establishing notability. Your second reference from billboard.com notes that Goldstuck was awarded with an award as follows: "The Spirit of Life Award, the highest honor bestowed by City of Hope, is presented annually to individuals who have made a notable contribution to their community and profession." According to WP:ANYBIO, a person meets the criteria if the person has received a well-known and significant award or honor. The award does not appear sufficiently notable to merit its own article here, nor is there any mention of the award in the City of Hope National Medical Center article so it does not appear to me that the award meets the criteria. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I found the full Bloomberg article here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krada123 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Board member of Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, awards and charitable work too from looking at an interview that can be found here. Also, innovations in vending industry here Blue2berry (talk) 13:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Both the interview in touchtunes.com and the interview in the vendingtimes.com would not be considered "independent of the subject" or "intellectually independent" and both fail the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- an advertorially toned BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. The subject is not independently notable of TouchTunes where he "developed artists" etc. Notability is not inherited from notable artists either. The TouchTunes article looks to be heavily promotional as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The PDF here is actually from the gaming industry's RePlay Magazine not TouchTunes. Sorry, I don't have access to back issues of RePlay, but I am sure someone in the community could provide the actual article link. I also found several others here and [1] and [2]. I am not understanding the notability and independent sourcing issues when there are existing Wikipedia articles [3] much less sourcing/notability and the same award mentioned to be an issue.67.246.86.156 (talk) 14:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - there are five areas where notability could be argued - co-founder of J Records; President of RCA Music; President of BMG; successful music producer; and CEO of a company (TouchTunes) on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, there's little to no media coverage I can find on his tenures at those companies, or anything indicating he was directly responsible for the named musicians' successes. The Bloomberg article is good [4] but I'd like to see more to pass the notability threshold. The current company - TouchTunes, is itself borderline. I can't find very much coverage on them either. The reason this isn't a full delete but instead a weak delete is that there's another article on an RCA President Tom Corson that is similar in sourcing, but with slightly more coverage. I don't know enough about the management structure of a big music company to determine whether being President by itself is enough to show notability, but my instinct tells me there's not enough here. If we go delete, Corson and TouchTunes might warrant a look also. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. These sources are worth considering - BusinessWeek and Crain's Krada123 (talk) 14:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hmmmm ... the BusinessWeek reference doesn't really have must to say about Charles Goldstuck - here's the text I can see in the abstract "Charles Goldstuck, TouchTunes chief executive officer, hopes to introduce the Virtuo overseas and says it could be a way for the music industry to make money in countries where piracy is rampant, such as China." So it provides his title and this paraphrases his own quotation. I would argue that it is not intellectually independent. Similarly, the Crain's reference has only published quotations from Goldstuck. Nothing independent. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I mean he pretty much is the company, his views, his plans, etc. and execs working below him and less notable have wikis- Tom Corson Richard Palmese Krada123 (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. His work on modern jukebox was profiled here and here Krada123 (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for digging these up. The Esquire source being more about the company would lead me more to keeping the TouchTunes article, and the Soundnet source looks more like a marketing site, so I still don't think this is enough for Mr. Goldstuck to pass notability. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Soundnet is a UK-based blog that covers the industry. Again I have to say that he is the company, he is behind all of the innovations etc.that are being covered in all of these press pieces. Krada123 (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It seems like notability is moot when you look at an article like this Richard Palmese. Goldstuck A quick view of Clive Davis's book here mentions him throughout stating things like “Charles Goldstuck was clearly my anointed successor” Page 437, in "eighteen months Charles had attained significant stature and was well respected.” Page 447,“Charles Goldstuck and I negotiated the right for Alicia (Keys) to come to J Records” Page 455,and Strauss and L.A. (Reid) met with Charles (Goldstuck) and offered him everything under the sun to convince him to stay at Artista and work as L.A.’s (Reid) number two man.” Sounds like a major player in the music industry. I think his TouchTunes company might be small, but is most innovative within that industry and was even the subject of a Harvard Research review http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=47386 here]. These jukboxes can even call you a ride home from a bar [5] and CNET says they are biggest in-venue streaming service here. Blue2berry (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I agree, if pages like the two mentioned, Tom Corson and Richard Palmese, meet notability standards when they work below Goldstuck, no name recognition, etc. then seems like notability is moot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krada123 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The notability of Tom Corson and Richard Palmese has nothing to do with the notability of Charles Goldstuck. Notability isn't related or inherited. Tom may say that Charles is a fine fellow, but that doesn't bestow notability on him. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentThat's not the point we were making. Comparatively those two entries are significantly less notable people than Goldstuck. He is all around a more prominent and notable figure. To me it doesn't really make sense that Goldstuck's notability is in question when you have entries like those. I think the Goldstuck entry needs editing but I don't think there's a question of whether it deserves to be up. Krada123 (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2017 (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.