Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Avruskin


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 10:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Aaron Avruskin

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A not notable Entrepreneur fails WP:GNG Hulatam (talk) 06:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep His company's Instagram accounts collectively have over 5 million followers. He has been covered on Rotten Tomatoes, the Hustle, Washington Morning, Trends, and FANSIDED. He is also business partners with Mark Cuban.B.KaiEditor (talk) 06:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither being business partners with a famous individual nor the number of followers on social media is a relevant criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia. The only important criterion is principal coverage of the subject in reliable, third-party sources. Of the sources you listed, only The Hustle and Washington Morning come close, but their "About" pages and editorial policies are not encouraging. None of the other references listed as sources for the article qualify as reliable, third-party sources. Mind  matrix  14:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd be fascinated to know which of "Rotten Tomatoes, the Hustle, Washington Morning, Trends, and FANSIDED" you think are reliable or WP:GNG-worthy sources. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Avruskin’s work in television and film is indisputible. The sources are linked on his page and online. Additionally, his business dealings are all covered in Front Office Sports, which is linked in the article. This source is reputable, and it highlights his whole business career. If you have any suggestions on how to improve his article, I am all for it and will make the necessary changes, but simply saying the sources are not good enough, is not a good reflection of this article. Thank you for your concern and commitment to making Wikipedia a better place for all of us editors.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by B.KaiEditor (talk • contribs) 23:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hulatam (talk) 06:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hulatam (talk) 06:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and MindMatrix. CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete none of the coverage is the substantial coverage from reliable independent sources that is the connerstone of Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear, John Pack Lambert. I noticed that you voted against keeping this article. I looked at your logs for March 1, and all you did that day was go through deletion discussions. In every single deletion discussion, you voted to delete the article, which is already a red flag (there were about fifty that you voted on). Additionally, the time stamps show that you are averaging about two minutes per article, showing that there is no way you can have a complete understanding of the situation when you practically spend no time looking into it. Just because the person is not a household name does not mean that they are not notable. Also, you have had about fifteen articles speedily deleted in February 2021, which makes me wonder if you should really be voting in these discussions. I mean this in no disrespect, but I implore you to slow down and learn more about these individuals. Thank you; I know you have good intentions. B.KaiEditor (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * , If they are not notable then the vote will be delete. Please stop judging and criticizing others as it's against Wikipedia policy. Hulatam (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked for UPE. MER-C 13:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment That was nothing personal; don’t get my message twisted. I was stating the obvious, and I have nothing against this individual. I find it quite disrespectful when one judges without knowing the whole and in turn, totally disregarding my hard work and research. That is not appreciated. I would never attack someone because of their personality. I recall I said, “I mean this in no disrespect." I am not trying to make enemies, and this doesn't need to be argument. I was just sharing my findings, which I thought to be relevant. I am sorry to stir up any trouble; that was never my intention. B.KaiEditor (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep This page should be kept. This page on Avruskin seems to pass WP:GNG because there are significant sources cited in his page an online that are independent of the subject and deemed to pass WP:RS.  Because the subject of this pages passes WP:N, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG, it should be kept. Jonathan170 (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * delete per nom, no indication of notability. --hroest 22:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems notable enough. There are plenty of sources that provide enough context to show his notability, even if it is small. There are plenty of other bio articles that have far less notable individuals. The sources back up the article information, so there are no issues involving living people bio violations. Sure, there aren’t dozens of mainstream sources, but that doesn’t mean the person isn’t notable. Not everyone notable interacts on mainstream platforms. I’d prefer to keep and just modify the structure to make it a sound a little less promotional. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 05:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:MILL. There is broad but very shallow coverage in less than reliable sources. I know something about gaming law in North America, and I've never heard of this person or their business. By every indication, this is a run of the mill business person. In 2021, it is untenable that a person could assert that Wikipedia should have no standards for inclusion. I am not a total deletionist, FWIW. Bearian (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. The references here are not reliable sources for the purposes of meeting WP:GNG — GNG does not just indiscriminately count up the footnotes and keep anybody who has surpassed an arbitrary number, but tests the sources for their reliability (e.g. you can't use blogs), their independence of the subject (e.g. you can't use press releases self-published by his own employers, or the directory entries of his own films in the catalogues of film festivals they've screened at), their depth (i.e. it's not enough that his name gets mentioned in a source, if said source isn't about him in any meaningful way), and the context of what they're covering the person for (i.e. you can't use Q&A interviews in which he's the person doing the talking, but not the thing being spoken about). Literally the only footnote here that actually comes from a legitimately reliable or GNG-worthy media outlet is a CBC Radio hit (#9), but that's present only to verify a stray fact about somebody else whose name happens to be present in the text, and isn't about Aaron Avruskin for the purposes of actually helping to establish his notability. GNG requires real journalism about him in real media, not just any web page you can find that happens to have his name in it. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete As per Bearcat. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 06:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.