Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Bloch


 * 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! 03:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Bloch

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article fails to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. After removing the claims of notability that are about the PR agency rather than Block, all that remains is his heavy Twitter use based on the Tweetlevel tool rather than a publication and being listed somewhere in the PR Week Power Book. Specifically the clients mentioned are Frank's rather than his personal clients (even if they were, being an agent for notable clients does not automatically confer notability) and awards mentioned are for Frank PR, not for Block himself. Fæ (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- Fæ (talk) 08:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete The sentence - Bloch tweets at http://www.twitter.com/andrewbloch, does not add any important fact to the article. Again the heading - "What they do" talks more about a company and what the company has achieved rather than shedding light on the notable personality of Andrew Bloch. If no considerable expansion and make over can be done then it should be deleted.-- CrossTempleJay     talk 08:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is about a noteable executive in a listed firm, so is of relevance to media, shareholders, investors and employees. The information on Andrew's agency can and should be removed or placed on the main agency page, and additional citations for all other parts are being sourced as needs be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaySorrels (talk • contribs) 09:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC) I take your point. That is not enough. However, the criteria for Creative Professionals should be instructive. This person is very regularly cited by peers and trade media in an authoritative manner and there are many analagous figures with stand alone entries which after a time of collaboration and editing have remained on Wikipedia without objection or incident. This article has clearly not met such a standard. But it must and will in the near future. JaySorrels (talk —Preceding undated comment added 09:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC).  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Frank PR is not a listed company, the parent company Photon Group is listed on on the Australian stock exchange. Company executives are not automatically notable as Wikipedia is not intended to be a executive staff listing for the history of all corporate boards for companies that meet ORG. The criteria of BIO have to be met for the individual to justify a stand-alone encyclopaedic article. Fæ (talk) 09:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * 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.