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. This is a bit complicated, since most of the deletes are eloquent and detailed, whereas most of the keeps are just throwaway comments: "keep since notable". If it hadn't been for BoyRD's specific mention of what they thought were acceptable sources this could have gone the other way: but the references they give as 1, 2, and 9 (Observer, AdAge, Adweek) are lengthy and acceptable, and--as it happens--these references are not demolished by JamesBWatson and K.e.coffman in their otherwise effective arguments. So while the deletes are correct in saying that much of the coverage is very poor, and that the article has a high tripe content, there are good arguments to keep based on at least some solid sources.

Note to participants: as tedious as it is, detailed discussion of sources is both helpful and necessary. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Binn[edit]

Jason Binn (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)

I AfD'd this last year and it has been restarted yet again with it still looking like a puffed PR article, none of this is actually minimally suggestive and clear as to how he's actually independently notable now. I honestly suggest finally Salting this so please look at this to see how numerous the times have been. SwisterTwister talk 21:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm staying with my delete position from the prior AfD. I see that the deleting admin JamesBWatson restored it in response to a request from Veggies 2, which can be seen here. But I don't see any changes made to the article to suggest it now merits retention. The delta of the article since its prior deletion can be viewed here. The only edits are adding a photo and correcting the case of the headings. The substantive issues discussed in the prior AfD remain. TJRC (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I originally speedily deleted this under CSD G4 (Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion). The person who created this version of the article objected to my deletion, and asked for it to be restored, so that he could start a discussion about it. There are more references than in the version discussed at the last AfD, and experience shows that some editors would take that as indicating that the article is not substantially the same, and so doesn't qualify for G4, even though the new references don't actually add anything significant. I therefore gave it the benefit of the doubt, and restored it. In the month since I restored the article, the editor in question has made no attempt to initiate the discussion he said he wanted, and his only edit to the article has been adding a photograph to it.

The article has been bombarded with large numbers of references to give the superficial impression that it is well sourced, as often happens with re-creations of articles deleted for lack of evidence of notability, but most of the references do nothing or very little to indicate notability. To give an idea of the quality of the references, ten chosen at random from the 28 references in the article are: one dead link; two pages not mentioning Jason Binn (one of them refers to a farm owned by "Moreton Binn", who apparently is Jason Binn's father, the other does not mention "Binn" at all); the personal page about Jason Binn on the web site of DuJour, of which he is the CEO; a page at www.etonline.com, where the only mention of Binn is a credit for a photograph on the page that he took; an announcement of launch of magazine, merely including Binn's name in a list of the owners of the magazine (and also the webstite where the announcement is made is "www.adweek.com", which may be an indication of how independent a source it is); an announcement of an appointment of Binn to a post; a page about him on a website which claims to deal with "an increasingly complex marketplace" which "heightens the need for information and competitive intelligence", which to me reads very much like marketing speak for saying they provide PR; an announcement of his marriage; a 12 page newsletter from a charitable organisation, which on page 12 has a one sentence mention of the fact that Jason Binn has done voluntary work for the charity. In short, this is a typical example of bombardment of an article previously deleted for lack of notability with large numbers of references, without regard to their quality. I see no more evidence of notability than there was at the time of the last AfD. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I went through the references and found two dead links and I repaired them. The references are about Binn, and most have him in the headline or in the first graph. He is notable and an American publisher. His magazines are generally fluff, so it is no surprise that some say he is fluff. but no more than Page Six, E-Entertainment, or other such glamour publications. It does not make it less of publication, and they do get significant subscribers. For the record, I work in PR and have sought out Binn's magazines for my clients. He, however, is not a client of mine.Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - One thing is for certain looking through sources, Binn is always mentioned in relation to Niche Media and/or his publications. Articles and/or interviews: Forbes, CNNfn, Bloomberg, The Boston Globe,The Washington Times, WWD, Observer, Miami, Advertising Age. Way too mentions in sources to list here, just a few: The Washington Post, Marketing Weekly News, Bloomberg. From The New York Times: One, Two, Three, Four, Five. A couple of results from Google book search: 1, 2. Keep and improve.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that are either advertorial, interviews, trivial mentions or anything else like this is unacceptable. Considering this was also deleted, not only by AfD not even a year agp, it's been deleted numerous other times....thus there's not the considerably convincing substance. SwisterTwister talk 19:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• keep this article has everything needed to show its credible and worthy of an encyclopedic entry. Jason Binn is not just a businessman, but has created several well read and established publications and has been a subject of many media eyes and pens. It fits the protocols for a recognized individual and is definitely notable. 152.206.140.174 (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

152.206.140.174 has made no other contributions. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]

• Keep - Jason Binn is an established publisher and person often talked about in media. The article and it's notations meet Wikipedia standards and show a history of notability since the 1990s Fairlysimple (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Based from the 2 comments aboce, that's not convincing for establishing notability at this article, however. SwisterTwister talk 01:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "Talked about in the media" is insufficient rationale for keeping this article. WP:NOTNEWS may apply. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- promo content about a non-notable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source presented are mostly interview about the publications that Binn launches; for example, from the NYT MediaDecoder blog: "If you answered yes, then, aside from being extremely lucky, you’re just the reader for Du Jour, a new digital and print magazine. The publication comes from Jason Binn, founder of luxury magazines like Hamptons, Ocean Drive, Gotham and Aspen Peak, and a chief adviser of the Gilt Groupe, which offers online bargains on luxury goods." This, and similar sourcing, are trivial mentions insufficient to build an encyclopedia entry. Here's another one: "Binn (born Binstock) is the 37-year-old CEO of Niche Media LLC. Niche publishes free glossies that target the upper crust of New York, Los Angeles, Aspen, and the Hamptons. Binn also has a stake in separately held SoBeNews (as in South Beach), which publishes Vegas and Ocean Drive. Binn's job is uniquely suited to his signature traits: imperviousness to ridicule and a penchant for self-promotion. He has leveraged being a besotted fan into close friendships with stars (on stage together at one Binn gala were Russell Simmons, Heidi Klum, and Bill Clinton). He's very good -- and relentless -- at winning over audiences, whether they're readers, advertisers, or celebrities." K.e.coffman (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP - Jason Binn is a notable figure and is often quoted in third-party sources that are not his own publications. This article is well-sourced and demonstrates that. I believe it meets the criteria for Wikipedia.Fisherderek (talk) 00:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- the vote just above should probably be discounted as this is the only edit ever made by this editor: Special:Contributions/Fisherderek. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This article meets the criteria and Binn is notable. It's not puffery, it's genuine and if you take the time to look this guy up you'll see he gets plenty of third party ink. The article could be fixed a bit, but is certainly notable and proper.Veggies 2 (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this vote should probably be discounted as it was made by the creator of this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Based purely on the merits of the article - there have been no significant changes to the article since it was previously deleted, meaning there are no new reasons to retain it. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Clearly notable, per the article's references #1, #2, #9, #20, & #24, and maybe others. The article itself needs some work, but notability isn't in question. BoyRD (talk) 04:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Jason Binn is obviously a publisher of very superficially oriented material, and the news on him is about who he is seen with, which celebrity he was mingling with, or to whom his publications are geared for. Granted all of that, he is a nationally known publisher and entrepreneur who is notable enough to be mentioned by media on many occasions and clearly sought after by segments of our society. Whether he is married, divorced, where he lives, where his offices are, etc. it seems to me that he is interesting enough to mention. We don't have to like the subjects here, and we don't need to subscribe to their beliefs or ways, but we need to treat them the same across the board. Noteworthy is Noteworthy, not necessarily popular.ChasTayn (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- the above vote should be taken with a grain of salt as it comes from the editor who created the article on Binn's DuJour Media. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There should be no question of the subject's notability. He is mentioned in plenty of sources which are cited here. Binn is a noteworthy figure in the media industry.Greengrass333 (talk) 16:12, 12 August 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.