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 delete. Tone 14:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Bet-David[edit]

Patrick Bet-David (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)

Does not seem to satisfy any of the WP:NBIO criteria. Obsidi (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete if one looks for high quality independent sourcing, they are lacking (I have tried off and on for the past few months). There is lots of low quality sourcing, as is common for people who make their living on social media. This article has been under intense promotional pressure for a long time, which is how I came to work on it. I think we should delete, since notability is marginal and it is not worth the community's effort to maintain NPOV, given the long term promotional pressure. Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I had to go through two or three screens on Google of his videos for Entrepreneur magazine, and found nothing usable in the associated Forbes bio, but I did find and add two independent sources that enabled a bit of information about his company: that it's now based in Dallas, having moved from LA, that he runs it from his home, and that he hires "green" agents and trains them himself, rejecting people with much experience, I believe are useful data points and far better than the laundry list of products the company sells. Both sources have been impugned when my edits were reverted, so a little more about them: one is a summary of his biography/business in association with presentations he gave at an insurance convention (not an interview, and I took only facts about the business from it, leaving out for example the numbers of agents in 2009 and at the time of the article; the other is indeed somewhat breathless for what it is, which is a local-interest news story. Neither is stellar, but they are not pure promotion and are sumilar in this respect to the Denver article that was already in use, and far better than his own blog/website, which we are using. This amount of coverage I believe makes him squeak by, so I argue for keeping the article, and I have reinstated my edits because more third-party sources is an improvement and because adding more facts about his business or other aspects of his career can only help offset the promotionalism inherent in lists of websites he's started and their stated aims and products he aims to sell. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  For future reference, please clearly identify what sources you're referring to.

  My mistake, the insurancenewsnet.com is not an interview, but based upon one, what's not just grabbed directly from his self-description for the convention. Such publicity has no encyclopedic value, and trying to pry basic information from it without a better source is problematic for any article, but extremely so for a BLP. This is what WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SOAP are for: to prevent us from assuming some local, in-world publicity is worth noting in an encyclopedia article. --Ronz (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment My improvements have now been removed, so I suggest this version better reflects available sourcing. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  So why argue "weak keep" if there's no consensus for inclusion of the sources as required by BLP? --Ronz (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Because I disagree with your disqualification of the sources: see my characterization of them above. I improved the article; you removed the improvements on grounds that I regard as spurious. BLP is a red herring here: you gave as your reason for removal that the sources were promotional. I apologize for further cluttering this AfD by responding, but the two sources are important for assessing notability, and that is the issue here. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see how ignoring BLP improves anything. I think it important that AfD's take into account our content policies, in the case BLP's requirement for high-quality sources. ArbCom applies. --Ronz (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of notability. (He seems a thoroughly good guy – my !vote is no reflection on the subject himself.) Maproom (talk) 07:02, 4 October 2018 (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.