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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Battelle[edit]

John Battelle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Does not appear to meet criteria for inclusion, page is maintained by WP:SPAs, and was created by one. Separate SPAs have created and maintained related pages like BigTent and Federated Media, but WP is not built for free advertising. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A Google News Archive search shows extensive coverage of this person in a variety of publications regarding several different ventures over quite a few years. Cullen328 (talk) 03:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Most of the information out there is based on press releases by the article's subject and his enterprises. The article's subject is founder/owner of a web-based promotional firm. Most edits have been by one-article editors or editors focusing on subsidiaries and clients of that firm. Recent editor Crog8 claims to be doing it as a student project (per his/her post on my talk page). Oldtaxguy (talk) 04:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. He fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Also fails WP:PROF, since he is little more than an adjunct, despite the impressive-sounding title of "visiting professor." That adds up to little more than a parking sticker on his car for the part-time temporary faculty lot. Also, if he really was such a web-tech heavyweight, he wouldn't be wasting his time here on Wikipedia in violation of WP:AUTO and WP:COI. Qworty (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (Co-)Founder of both Wired and The Industry Standard - either of these would support notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Co-moderator with Tim O'Reilly (of O'Reilly Media) of the Web 2.0 Summit [1]. PC World calls him with O'Reilly the "head honcho" of the summit, which is "highly exclusive and influential" [2]. He's also co-founding editor of Wired[3], as a journalist, publishes opinion articles in Business Insider [4] and interviews Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook [5], interviewed by National Public Radio as an authority on the search marketplace [6]… Did anyone actually look for sources before this article was put up to AfD? Yes, the guy's in advertising, but he's also apparently an accomplished journalist and an influential guy in terms of tech. Now, the article as it stands is badly written, sounds promotional, and is badly referenced, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. I think I've provided more than enough sources to get started. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 04:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Spam. We can have this conversation again down the road if a non-promotional article is created with reliable sourcing that clearly supports notability. jæs (talk) 06:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on sources. They don't amount to much. Most of them mention him only in passing, and are not about him. Most of them are primary, rather than the required secondary. WP:RS in terms of WP:N has not been satisfied. Qworty (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. A couple more sources and interviews? And again, I found these in just a few minutes of Google News Archives/Google Books, with very little research. He's interviewed here in the Washington Post: [7] "Federated's Battelle Doubts Bubble in Technology Stocks". The Post is undoubtedly a reliable secondary source per WP:RS, and having his opinion solicited on the future of tech stocks says to me he's a player. He's also interviewed for an entire chapter as an authority on blogging business and architecture in this book: [8]. Bloomberg reviews Battelle's own book The Search positively and calls it required reading here [9]. This doesn't include interviews that he's taken, or glancing mentions that could fill out the article now that we've more than met the requirement for WP:RS of his qualifications. I'm also going to have to dispute the previous sources being primary. A primary source would be something said by John Battelle or his company, such as a press release or direct quotes from his book. Information sourcing from O'Reilly, PC World, TechCrunch or other nonaffiliated news sources is definitely secondary coverage. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 23:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to include the bit where Forbes reviews his book positively, cites all his qualifications, and calls his book required reading again: [10]. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 23:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep seems to be notable as an author, and Google News seems to show no scarcity of reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:27, 3 June 2011 (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.