Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam DeGraide


 * 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. Support for keeping the article is weak, but the case for deletion isn't overwhelming. I don't think relisting this is going to help. Fences &amp;  Windows  03:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Adam DeGraide

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete Was deleted on a PROD but restored after an admin was contacted. Article is entirely promotional with no indication as to why this businessman is deserving of an article. Has been interviewed in a number of trade mags but, but again, the articles are promotional and nothing to suggest notability. HighKing (talk) 13:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep Very Weak Keep - The first reference just about meets the following from WP:BIO, as long as you consider the "Orlando Business Journal" to be reliable - "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" I know it's weak, but the mention in the Wall Street Journal helps too. Guinness (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, at first I thought there was enough coverage and that it was good quality, but if you take a closer look, I believe you'll notice a pattern or trend - they're all promotional! The Orlando Business Journal is a pretty typical regional business newspaper, but this article is a pretty typical "infomercial" designed to look independent, but is really a promotional piece on a new company.  It's really a press release.  Definitely not "intellectually independent".  It would be one thing if it was "an interview with X" type of article, but it isn't.  It's really a plug on his "new business".  For example, the article gives gushing quotes from friends and collegues like Dan Beck and Andy Tavel (which a journalist wouldn't print like this) is another giveaway.  The "mention" in the WSJ is not about him, but is a quote.  Doesn't mean he's notable.  --HighKing (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, no arguments about how good a case there is for the article, it's thin, it's very thin. Guinness (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The 3 major references in this article meet the notability requirements of WP:BIO.
 * (1) The Orlando Business Journal article was written by the managing editor at the paper, Cindy Barth, therefore is intellectually independent. Although it may read somewhat like a informercial, DeGraide was interviewed for this article and it was published in the paper independent of him.
 * (2)The Rough Notes article titled "Unfair Advantage" is a recently published independent work written by Rough Notes' senior editor Nancy Ducette. Rough Notes is the oldest and widest distributed magazine in the insurance industry.
 * (3) Insurance Journal, the second largest distributed magazine in the insurance industry, published an article this month about DeGraide titled "The Face of Freakin' Agency Marketing: Kool Prophet Promises Astonishing Results." The article was featured as the Insurance Journal's November cover story.
 * Link to the cover: http://www.insurancejournal.com/digital/products.php?action=view&item=900
 * Article is not hosted online, but I have the magazine if you'd like me to PDF the article.


 * All three of these articles are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. I think DeGraide meets the criteria of notability. --Tophergrant (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: An independent piece was just published in the Nov. 16 issue of Insurance Journal. Title: "The Face of Freakin' Agency Marketing: Kool Prophet Promises Astonishing Results." No way is it promotional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.255.57 (talk) 03:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep I tried to clean it up. It's marginal. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- - 2/0 (cont.) 04:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * [[Image:Symbol keep vote.svg|15px]] Keep — Weak, as per reasons provided above. ContinueWithCaution (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't agree with the above comments saying all of the coverage is promotional but it is trivial at best. It only mentions the gentleman's name with a quote and then nothing more is said about him. His company certainly seems notable but there is nothing to suggest that the man himself is. Also, some of the references lead to dead ends. Not good. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:33, 3 December 2009 (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.