Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Timpone


 * 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   redirect to Journatic. JohnCD (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Brian Timpone

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Brian Timpone's article fails based primarily on WP:NN and the fact that the article fits WP:SPIP. WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARY also apply to this AfD. His company (which is what is talked about in most of the article) is notable & his personal history can be discussed in an brief excerpt on the page about his company (Journatic). Every one of the 8 citations on this page discusses his company, Journatic. None of them are about him. As an individual, he does not meet the standards to have his own Wikipedia page simply because he recently started a company that sells articles to newspapers. Also, most of the content about him is original research or his own opinions from his blogs / websites he owns. It is all primary source material. Additionally, this page reads more like PR and advertising – and it is heavily biased towards a positive (revisionist) view of Timpone’s actual behavior during the major 2012 scandal with his company, Journatic. For example, it uses wording like "Journatic’s one-time mistake" to minimize Timpone's actual behavior (which was not a one-time mistake, but actually something that happened over 300 times - see journatic). But anyway, this "mistake" has to do with Journatic - not Timpone. It is all covered under the Wikipedia entry Journatic which is notable as a company – and the subject of 30+ articles outside WP. Timpone, himself, is not a notable subject. His company has been discussed in numerous publications. As for him, sufficient information can barely be gathered outside of his own PR material, and this article is written with heavy spin about his involvement in the 2012 Journatic scandal. This even has a whole "response to criticism" section that I have never seen in a BLP on WP (and it is 25% of its content). It is very much WP:SPIP. This section even includes how his company (again, back to Journatic) paid overseas workers “more than most other places in the Philippines [that the workers could have worked at]" which is (a) about Journatic & not Timpone (b) not encyclopedic for a BLP...it's just PR and spin. So, I'd say: Keep Journatic (which is 2/3rds of the content here anyway) and Delete Timpone. ApolloLee (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

ApolloLee - It's pretty clear from this user's comments here and her edits on the Journatic page that she has a serious axe to grind. I can't imagine any reasonable person looking at her edits on Journatic's page and agreeing that they are a neutral point of view. 92.114.94.86 (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * To 92.114... All of my edits on the Journatic page are sourced by 24+ different reputable newspapers including The Chicago Tribune, The Chicago Sun Times, Crain's Chicago Business, Poynter, NPR, The Guardian, The Chicago Reader, and more.  Nothing I have stated is unsourced or with an “Axe to grind”.  If you find the article to be “negative,” then please suggest changes.  Unfortunately, the things that Journatic has done are public record (as recorded by many leading, unbiased newspapers that were my sources).  If you can identify statements that are not sourced and are an “attack” then please do.  I carefully read through these articles and took exactly what was presented in them.  It is simply a (cited) fact that Journatic used false bylines (of American names for authors who were Filipino), plagiarized, and fabricated content.  They attempted to cover this up when it first came out (also sourced) and the CEO’s decisions / behavior are all documented in reputable places outside Wikipedia.  They then lost business due to this and other reasons presented in the article (and sourced).   If you are writing about events that are not happy and great, then the article might look biased and like an “attack” - but the prior version was simply Journatic’s promotional material pasted in here (citing only “The Journatic Journal”)  Now, I have cited 24 additional neutral POV newspapers and given the full story, which is not always pretty - but it is factual. Note, the above text applies to Journatic not to this AfD for Brian Timpone. ApolloLee (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Subject is not widely covered in media. Company that he is a CEO of is also being proposed for deletion. Agree to delete. Allisoncornish (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Not voting here, but ApolloLee, please be more careful when replying to users - you inserted your comment within the IP's, meaning that their signature was nowhere near the comment. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 21:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that... thanks for fixing it. I think the "special contributions" confused me - I never saw that in a signature & thought it applied to the stuff below ("the debate has been included...") stuff.  But Gene93k added that. Woops. ApolloLee (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, and it's perfectly normal for an IP's sig. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 14:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * redirect to the company. Normally I think it's better to have the article on the individual who has usually done more things than just the company, but in this case all the sources seem to be about the company.  DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect makes sense to me too FWIW. ApolloLee (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2013 (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.