Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will Brooke (businessman)

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 no consensus. Davewild (talk) 06:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will Brooke (businessman)

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

Non notable. failed politician, with vague claims for having been involved in various movements. Relatively minor executive position--not head of the firm DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability is determined by coverage, not importance of accomplishments. Brooke has significant coverage is multiple reliable sources, as demonstrated by those already in the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the handful of RS already in the article, many more exist: [1][2]. By the way, Brooke may not have taken the "CEO" title, but he is the co-founder of the (notable) firm, not some "minor executive". --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The mere fact that media coverage exists of a candidacy does not make a person notable enough for a Wikipedia article — it makes them a WP:BLP1E. All candidates in all elections always generate some media coverage, so a person has to win office, not merely run in a primary, to qualify for a Wikipedia article on that basis. He might potentially be notable for his business career, but that hasn't been adequately demonstrated here — not a single source here covers him in the context of his business career in its own right, but rather is sourced entirely to either primary sources or passing mentions of his business career as background in coverage of his candidacy. That is not the kind of coverage it takes to claim that he gets over our inclusion rules for businesspeople. And for that matter, even the company's article is completely unsourced, and fails to properly demonstrate that it passes WP:CORP for anything — so he doubly can't claim an automatic notability freebie as a cofounder of a company, if the company's notability is also debatable. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not true that all candidates generate coverage, but in any case what confers notability is biographical coverage, which few political candidates generate. "Horse race" coverage may well do zip for notability, but biographical material always shows notability (even if it was generated because of a political candidacy). Brooke did generate biographical coverage and is therefore notable. Our general notability guidelines are quite clear that accomplishments can never count against someone, only for them (i.e. the specific guidelines can confer notability, but failing them never conveys non-notability). BLP1E quite obviously does not apply here - the guideline is intended to protect private individuals caught up in a news story, not same people notable for one thing can't be notable. Additionally, Brooke is back in the news this year for reasons unrelated to his previous candidacy (his involvement in a political scandal, see provided news links), so even the "1" part is false. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes, it is true that all candidates generate coverage — they don't necessarily all garner equal volumes of coverage, but media have a public service obligation to grant some coverage to all candidates in any election taking place in their coverage area. If I wanted to (which I don't), I could write and source an article about every single person, winner or loser, who ran for any office in the Toronto municipal election, 2014 — they wouldn't all be good articles by any stretch of the imagination, and most of them wouldn't have any substantive reason why an article should actually be kept on here, but not a single one of them (not even the fringiest freaknuts) would be completely unsourceable. Whether the amount of coverage is enough to satisfy GNG is another story — but no candidate in any election ever goes completely uncovered. Bearcat (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it's not really relevant to my argument anyway so I'll concede the point. Certainly, most candidates do not generate quality (biographical) coverage, which should be the standard for notability. IMO, that has occurred here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to have received much media coverage other than for running for office, and that's not going to satisfy WP:POLITICIAN, much less WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GNG only requires a few sources and dozens exist here. Can you explain why you feel the guideline is not met? --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many of them are about him specifically (and substantially), and how many are WP:reliable sources? Not many. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that is simply not true. Of those in the article already, Businessweek, Yellowhammer News, and Biz Journals are clearly reliable and articles about Brooke that are biographical in nature. Additional sources such as Tuscaloosa News, CNN, Huntsville Times, Politico, Roll Call, and so on also qualify. It is true Brooke did not win his election, but he did attract considerable local and national reliable source coverage - well beyond all reasonable expectation of what all/most candidates routinely generate. In other words, the GNG is clearly met. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You made me waste several minutes checking out campaign drivel? Shame on you. Lots of candidates get media coverage. None of yours are suitable. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And lots of politicians are notable... Please show me the part of the general notability guideline that says sources related to an election are invalid for considering notability. Until you do, your argument is essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT. What actually matters is the quality of the source, not the reason it was published. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that arguing that sources related to an election are invalid is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. Cunard (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - presented with more evidence, he might be notable. However, right now he fails all our our relevant notability guidelines (WP:POLITICIAN, WP:GNG) as well as my standards for lawyers. He came in fifth - an "also ran" - in a single race, in which he made an ad shooting a copy of the ACA. I don't see how any reasonable person could find that notable. The story in Politico by itself doesn't prove notability as we define it; it's about a campaign tactic, and not about him. Again, if we had more information on his law school and bar association activities, then I would re-consider. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request - If consensus is to delete, I would like to request the closing admin userify it instead so that I may reuse some of the material in an article about the election where it surely not improper to cover Brooke and the other candidates. Alternatively, a redirect to Harbert Management Corporation or United States House of Representatives elections in Alabama, 2014#District 6 with the history intact would serve the same purpose... I don't think anyone would object to a redirect to either of those places where Brooke is mentioned. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is quite a bit of coverage of this this guy including coverage of his political future in Alabama and beyond. So, he has received and continues to receive coverage, which clearly meets WP:POLITICIAN #2. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians says:
Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".
The sources provided by ThaddeusB (talk · contribs) above:
Of those in the article already, Businessweek, Yellowhammer News, and Biz Journals are clearly reliable and articles about Brooke that are biographical in nature. Additional sources such as Tuscaloosa News, CNN, Huntsville Times, Politico, Roll Call, and so on also qualify.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Will Brooke to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
WP:BLP1E does not apply because Will Brooke is not a low-profile individual. Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual (which is linked to in BLP1E) says:
A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable.
Because condition 2 of BLP1E is not met, BLP1E does not apply because the policy requires that "each of three conditions is met". Condition 1 is not met either per ThaddeusB's comment above at 00:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC).
Cunard (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:45, 16 April 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.