Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Bloch (2nd nomination)


 * 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. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Bloch
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable - has not met either criteria of: 1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. 2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field Reichsfürst (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete – Article has many problems. I had to remove a lot of pointless information about his student jobs and his work experience. Also the subject does not seem to meet our notability guidelines. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  16:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The page creator just posted a response and signed it using my name...Reichsfürst (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies if my script editor made an error there. Logic and decency dictates it could not have been a deliberate act. I'd argue that there is a lot of subjectivity being asserted here. What is pointless about setting out the context and history of a career choice of a prominent person in an industry? What constitutes notability in marketing in PR in the opinion of the wikipedia community? What analogous entries does the community suggest for reference? What is seen as a widely recognised contribution? Serial mentions in trade media and from peers do not suffice? One could suggest that strong feelings about the industry this individual has contributed to have created disproportionate interest in the swift truncation and deletion of his biography. May I appeal to the better, more collaborative and collegiate members of the WikiPedia community to advise and mediate here? --JaySorrels (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is not such thing as a script editor error. You clearly made this post by hand. Assuming good faith, we shall assume that you made a cut-and-paste that didn't go quite right. Make sure it never happens again. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  23:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I would also point out that the editor has a clear conflict of interest, a quick google will tell you he is 'Head of Digital at Frank'. Reichsfürst (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So I am. I make no attempt to misrepresent myself or significant individuals associated with me. I do not use some handle or witty, cryptic pseudonym and proxy server. This individual has been cited as influential and notable in a major UK industry by its publication of record 5 times. The firm with which he is associated is seen as an important presence by peers. Stakeholders have repeatedly asked if there is a simple wikipedia biography of him. My only desire is to work with the community in an amicable spirit of co-operation to come up with an entry acceptable to all. I am not trying to damage wikipedia or insert irrelevances. Again, I appeal to the good nature of the administration community to advise and intervene - surely that's how this is supposed to work?--JaySorrels (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The PR agency appears to have some notability in the UK. I've added citations to the article for the PR award won from the UK magazine called Marketing, and the detailed description of Bloch in PR Week magazine, both of which are part of the Haymarket Group.  Multiple forms of recognition by services dedicated to British advertising and the public relations industry ought to be notable. --I Jethrobot (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited. Please see arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, and especially WP:ITSA. The article is a biographical article about a person. The article needs to show notability of the subject. This is not an article about his PR company (which would also fail WP:ORG). — Fly by Night  ( talk )  23:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Your point about WP:ITSA is noted (though we can discuss the notability of the PR company itself when it is appropriate). Thank you.  However, there is still independent, specific coverage of Bloch here and here and here that I stand by.  I Jethrobot (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The first reference is a PR directory. It's 120 pages of PR people. I counted 400+ included in that directory. If that is a proper source then I should get an article: I'm in the phone book too! The second reference is a link to an organisation that he helped to set up, and he's included in the "who's involved" section. One can't set up one's own website, write about oneself, and then claim it's non-trivial, independent coverage. The third reference is about his PR company, in which he is mentioned by association. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  16:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the second source is not independent, but I disagree that the first source is a "phone book." Rolling Stone could also be a phone book for artists and musicians by your reasoning.  The third reference is not exclusively about the company, it is about Bloch's background and what he did to start and make the company successful. Also, Bloch is being directly interviewed about it.  I disagree that these two sources can be discounted in the way you have described above. I, Jethrobot drop me a line 18:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons given. Eeekster (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: I certainly see references claiming this award or that for the subject's agency. I don't see evidence of notability for Bloch himself; he neither meets any of the criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO.  Suggestions that we could only apply Wikipedia's policies and guidelines out of malice towards the subject's profession is a display of bad faith, and I further recommend that Mr. Sorrels place his focus on coming up with the mainstream media sources which would secure a pass under the GNG.   ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  18:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I am looking to satisfy GNG in every way I can and work along with the community here. There are over 50,000 senior PR professionals in the UK. With respect, the PR Week PowerBook is not a phone book at all, it represents the editorial team’s collective view of the sub 1% it feels are the most important and notable. More references can be added to independent, respected trade publications. Is there a precedent for the trade publication of record for an industry sector to be seen to fail GNG? What about an independent Who's Who? What is the definition of mainstream media and does this exclude trade or special interest media?--JaySorrels (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I recommend you review the links already posted to your talk page, which describe in detail how best to create a Wikipedia article and the criteria we employ to gauge notability. That being said, what we look for in mainstream sources is, well, mainstream sources.  Has Bloch ever been interviewed by the BBC?  Are there profiles of him in the Times or the Economist?  Has he received significant coverage in a book from a major publisher?  That's the level of media attention we seek.  As far as industry sources go, our experience is that the great majority are puff pieces tantamount to advertising, and very few of them pass muster as reliable sources.  That being said, the only source in the article which discusses Bloch in the "significant detail" WP:BIO requires is the GorkanaPR article, but GorkanaPR's own notability is questionable; I could find, for instance, no hits on Google UK's News for it, which doesn't speak well for its importance in the field. Finally, the conflict of interest here is serious; you admit to being an employee of Bloch's in charge of digital matters. Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest strongly discourages you from creating or editing articles where the conflict applies, for just this situation: "How do I find some rule under which we can sneak my boss' article through?" rather than "Does this subject qualify for an article?"   ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  19:29, 29 June 2011 (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.