Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Odom


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Chris Odom

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Literally all sources unsuitable for Wikipedia, and mostly primary. WP:BEFORE shows the football player in RSes. No evidence of notability. This has never been an article with acceptable sourcing for a BLP. Contested PROD - but the editor contesting did not fix the problems ... just removed all the sourcing tags. David Gerard (talk) 09:15, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * As mentioned in my edit summary, those tags I've removed were false since an interview of a person is a secondary and not a primary source. Furthermore a report of someone's activities or words done by an independent source is not a primary source. The notability of the person was already adressed on the article's talk page on 13 June 2016 after the previous nomination of this article for deletion: the notability is derived from the fact that Chris Odom is an author of a book with a very considerable printing run. --eugrus (talk) 11:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What you're talking about is your statement "Article's importance> Chris Odom is an author of books with a huge printing run" - this needs independent third-party evidence, and that the books in question are in fact notable themselves. The claim he ghost-wrote someone else's books definitely needs serious verification - David Gerard (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you really consider the author page created by Amazon a primary source on who is the author of a certain book? Is the Library of Congress also primary? --eugrus (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So one again, isn't the claim Chris Odom was the ghostwriter behind the bestselling... on Amazon.com a source of what someone ghost-wrote and if not a bookseller or a library then who should claim someone wrote something for you to recognize such a source as credible and secondary? --eugrus (talk) 13:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've now also cited a book of independent authors published by a major American publishing house as a further source on Chris Odom. --eugrus (talk) 11:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Btw, by that I mean --eugrus (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: If kept, this page should be moved to Chris Odom (programmer) as this person is clearly not the primary topic for "Chris Odom". Regardless of outcome, Chris Odom (American football) should be moved here for the same reason. – Laundry Pizza 03  ( d c&#x0304; ) 18:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - promotional. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you please go further on that claim? Preferably with regards of WP guidelines as to what promotional is. If worth mentioning, I am in no way a related party to the person subject of the article. --eugrus (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: What concerns me is that the sourcing here is so incredibly light when it comes to which sources on the page can be seen as reliable. Here's my rundown of the sourcing:
 * Dating Skills Review. This page is more of a database type listing at best and at worst it's a profile page on a site that aims to sell the reader something. When searching through the website for anything that would make this site seem like a reliable source I was bombarded with pop up ads offering me free custom advice. Not the type of thing Wikipedia would see as reliable.
 * Linkedin. This is at best a primary source. It tends to be heavily discouraged as a primary source on Wikipedia because Linkedin is seen as inherently promotional. Generally speaking, as far as primary sources go this isn't really the type of thing you want to use on here because aside from the site being intended for a way for people to mingle and promote themselves, it's also very frequently used by marketing people who come on Wikipedia to promote a client. I'm not saying that's what is happening here, just explaining why it's such a bad idea to use this as a source unless you have a lot of secondary, independent sourcing to mitigate things.
 * GitHub. This is a primary source and can't show notability. Offhand, this is more along the lines of a better primary source to use, if you had to rely more heavily on primary sources.
 * Open Transactions. Another primary source, cannot show notability.
 * Age of Cryptocurrency. This isn't terrible at all, but it's not really a slam dunk as far as a source goes. I'd consider it to be usable, but it's not enough on its own to really show notability and it's kind of on the lighter side of a mention, all things considered. It's not bad but it's also not as strong as a source as would be needed in a situation where there's really not a lot out there.
 * Inside Bitcoins. This one is a bit tricky. The main issue here is that it's based on an interview. I don't always agree with it, but interviews and interview based articles are seen as primary sources since the information is coming from the interviewee. There's also some slight concern that the website offers sponsored articles, as traditionally websites that offer this are seen as unreliable on Wikipedia. Still, this doesn't look to be a sponsored article. Long story short, this is really not a strong source to rely on since a good chunk of editors see interview type articles as primary sources that can't give notability.
 * Bitcoin. This is about a company Odom founded. What weakens the source are two things: that the article is kind of written like a press release and most importantly, that the site sells products. The latter would invalidate it for many editors.
 * Amazon. Amazon is definitely an e-commerce site and as such, isn't seen as reliable. It actually shouldn't be used as a source at all, as its usage is seen as both promotional and as Wikipedia potentially endorsing the site and/or product. I would recommend using WorldCat to back up claims of him working on these books. However I do need to state that the claims of him mostly writing the books is not backed up by the Amazon source or WorldCat, so should be removed from the article. For this you'd need a very good, strong source that would stand up under scrutiny.
 * In the end there is one OK source (the book) and two weaker sources (interview based article and Bitcoin.com). This really isn't enough to establish notability on Wikipedia - you need much, much stronger sourcing than this. Offhand my recommendation would be to look for book reviews in reliable sources that specifically mention him by name. Avoid self-published blogs and PUA type websites for these, as you need things like reviews in newspapers and the like for this to really help bolster the article. I've replaced the Amazon link with a Buzzfeed article, but that's not a super strong source so I wouldn't really rely too heavily on it to help save the article. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡)  18:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is an informative discussion but only 1 vote.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There has been a lot of debate but 1 !vote is not enough to have a consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg  jhp  jm  10:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NBIO not met, and WP:V is clearly not met either. Potentially a WP:PROMO violation. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Poor sourcing, and probably qualifies for WP:G11. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2018 (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.