Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew M. Stroth


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 06:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Andrew M. Stroth

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable marketing representation lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Individual has small quotes in relation to his clients, but lacks in-depth coverage about subject of article. Appears to fail WP:BIO.  ttonyb (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate on what exactly you need in terms of GHits and GNEWs? This person is a legitimate representative of the people referenced in the entry - what types of sources would you/Wikipedia need to show proof? The citations included are meant to show that Stroth does in fact represent the clients referenced -- though the articles are not ABOUT Stroth representing the client (in this line of work, the media is interested in the client themselves, not necessarily in who their representative is). Very interested in your thoughts and feedback! Christineokelly (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Google searching and Google News Archive searching are used to determine whether the person has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. That's how Wikipedia determines whether the subject is "notable" or not. That's what is needed for a person to have an article at Wikipedia; passing mentions in an article about somebody else are not enough. See Notability (people) for an explanation of the criteria. Your citations show that he does indeed represent some notable people, but there is a saying here that "notability is not inherited"; just being associated with a notable person does not mean that their notability rubs off on you. It's true that the attorneys or representatives of notable people, or attorneys for important legal cases, often get mentioned in news stories, but that does not make the attorneys or representatives notable in themselves. And that's the problem with an article about Mr. Stroth. He represents notable people, but that does not make him notable in himself. --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete lots of citations of WP:RS, but a random sampling of the sources reveals only brief mentions, not significant coverage. This doesn't meet the requirements imposed by the notability guideline. Also, the article is written in the format of a resumé, which isn't neutral. Chester Markel (talk) 01:04, 7 May 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.