Talk:Keith Ferrazzi

Untitled
Could someone please provide citation for the following statement? "He has been called one of the world's most "connected" individuals by both Forbes and Inc. magazines" —Kn0wItAll 10:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I coldnt agree with you more! This citation is quoted directly from his book!!!

He is represented by Jordan Roberts?
What is this? Sounds like: "for more info or to book a speech, contact my agent, Jordan Roberts." Pgc512 (talk) 10:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Ferrazzi's newest book ... is a guide to mastering four "mindsets"?
Wow! Must be a super must-have book then !!! Pgc512 (talk) 10:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Edited the page
It was such nauseating shameless self-promotion that I had to modify it. Tried to make it neutral, deleted nonsense jargon, and deleted everything that was either empty of semantic content or unsourced (or sourced only by a Keith Ferrazz-run publication). Deleted the advertisement warning following the changes I made. Jesse Spafford 03:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC) 24 October 2012

Revisited, took out the quotes of blurbs from his books for violating the requirement from Living Persons Biography that "criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." Maybe the epigones who keep filling this page with fluff might want to actually put in a description of the books rather than promotional material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessespafford (talk • contribs) 02:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow
This article is a hell of a mess. I went through and toned down some of the POV language, took out some unsourced quotes and accolades and such. There is still a hell of a lot more to clean up. First up: the "Awards, honors, and press" section. This is a meaningless mishmash of stuff Ferrazzi would want you to see. Any meaningful awards will need coverage in independent reliable sources. Otherwise, we could add the "Ferrazzi's Mother's Cutest Little Boy in a Blue Suit Award". The rest will have to go. "Honors"? I'm not sure what constitutes an "honor". Maybe he was honored to take Crissy to the prom. Again, coverage in independent reliable sources will sort this out. As for "press", a detailed account calling him the prince of darkness would have been left out, I guess. The "press" included is hand selected "gee, ain't he a swell guy" kind of garbage. If it's a source, cite it. Otherwise, we lose it. All in all, this article needs to be burned to the ground and rewritten from a neutral point of view. If the original author would like to put together a glossy four-color trifold brochure promoting Ferrazzi, they are welcome to do so somewhere else. We should be reporting basic biographical information, why this guy is notable (assuming he is) and what independent reliable sources have to say about him. This might include things he isn't happy about and might leave out how cute his mom thought he was in that blue suit. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Awards, honors and press
This entire section was a trivial grab bag focused around building up Ferrazzi. If any of these supposed "awards" or "honors" are meaningful awards or honors, they will be covered in independent reliable sources. When Time names their "person of the year", it is meaningful, as demonstrated by the fact that numerous other publications (including reliable ones) discuss it. Deciding that content of a headline or copy in an article is an "award" or "honor" is a PR exercise, not an encyclopedic one. If any of the so-called "press" is significant coverage of Ferrazzi in independent reliable sources, please give us details. This article sorely needs such coverage to survive. The repeated drop-bys from COI editors adding unsourced laudatory garbage are not helpful. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the cleanup! --Ronz (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Advertising, conflict of interest, notability (Paid Editor?)
Starting section for discussion. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  16:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * there is no need to remove the tag. From word to word, the article is nothing but a promotion to that individual. Nothing is significant about this one. Prove that it is not promotion then delete the tags. I am tagging it again. do not waste the time on discussion. you remove when the results are out. Because of such articles Wikipedia is becoming a spam hub, it is not meant for individual biographies.


 * Can you tell me only one reason why people read about this guy on Encyclopedia? What is so great about this one? Light2021 (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the article speaks for itself. If you ask anyone in American business who Keith Ferrazzi is, they will most likely know, especially if you mention the book Never Eat Alone.  As the tagger, the burden is on you to be specific about what your concerns are.  Your argument is too general and I'm going to remove the tags until you can be more specific.  This will be my third and last revert because I don't want to violate WP:3RR.  I removed the promotional material and it reads fine now. The notability tag is the only one that makes sense, but it's redundant because the article is in a deletion discussion and so the notability is already being discussed.  You are also in the minority, so this comes across as an attempt to influence future voters.  Please let the voting run its course and be specific here about what content concerns you.  If you make a good case and others agree, and there is consensus, you can tag the article. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  17:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Read this, speaks all what people have wikipedia and what is purpose of Wikipedia in true sense. Lets not degrade the standards of it. Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-08/Op-ed . Please do not delete the tags. Voters are not fools who get influenced by tags. Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not built on Popularity of person. Else every individual acted on film or wrote a book will be part of Encyclopedia. Its niot the case here. We are not creating Wikipedia to write Personal Biography of individuals so they can promote themselves. Here in this case Not even a single article is found on Notable media with in-depth coverage. If you have any? please help me understand that. I can share Wiki policies in notability and media coverage policies if you like. Light2021 (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Was just going through your profile. Several times you have found in the category of Paid editor. complete violation of Wikipedia, and clears your intention on writing about this individual without having any of the coverage proof. As there are none.Light2021 (talk) 19:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have requested advice from an administrator so as to not violate WP:3RR. I have made previous edits that you can see in the history, all of which were to comply with Wikipedia editing guidelines.  I did not create this article, nor did I add any promotional information, so I'm not sure how you are coming to the  conclusion that I'm somehow a paid editor.  It's obviously clear that the deletion discussion is not going to be anything but a no consensus close at worst. Go with consensus and please stop making baseless accusations.  TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  20:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Need your suggestions on This one. Complete promotional articles getting protected and just going for No-consensus. Not even a single coverage is found on Notable media. Editing is clear Paid. similar to here Articles for deletion/Travis Bradberry Do not know how to take action on this one. Clear violation of Wikipedia. Selection of Authors who writes books and need promotion on Wikipedia. Clear hint of how and why these are selected.  DGG, K.e.coffman, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง,Bejnar, Light2021 (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Regardless of notability, which is a guideline and subject to valid disputes about interpretation, NOT ADVOCACY is a basic principle, and articles whose purpose and effect is advocacy must be removed. Otherwise,m NPOV fails, and we are no longer an encyclopedia, and we might as well let Amazon handle our coverage of authors and books. Advocacy is written by several classes of editors: paid editors making a business of it, paid PR agents or other employees or officers of a firm or other organization or the subject themselves for bios, enthusiastic fans, and naive good faith editors who think that's what is wanted (since they see so much of it already here, and because the omnipresence of advertising in the world has insensibly corrupted them). We would remove the articles in any case, but for the first two groups, we must also remove the editors. Their purpose is not to contribute to an encyclopedia, and NOT HERE is the basic reason. It's not a moral crusade--I have no objection to advocacy and even to advertising, both of which can be very useful. (I'll even pay money to help advocate for causes in which I believe--but I won't write about them here). I have listed Bradberry's book Emotional Intelligence 2.0 for speedy G11; and another admin has deleted it.    DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think any paid editors are going to touch this article. I removed what seems to be all the info that could be considered promotional. If the article is flagged with coi or paid editing tags, as you all well know, it will discourage anyone from editing, not to mention trying to influence a deletion vote that is rapidly going against the nominee. That's why I asked that the tags be discussed.  On a side note, is it considered bad form to edit another's section title to try to influence the voting? TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  17:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)