Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Zelkind


 * 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Daniel Zelkind

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject does not appear to be notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.   The article notes: "Zeek was Founded by Daniel Zelkind"
 * delete - very badly sourced, if cut to RSes this would be two sentences, neither saying much about Zelkind himself. Was PRODed, PROD removed without fixing the already tagged sourcing problems. And notability not apparent. His company may or may not, but there's not enough in sourcing to support a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * comment from creator:

 The article notes: "Meanwhile, Zeek co-founder and CEO Daniel Zelkind tells me the startup isn’t yet profitable but implies that it could be if it chose to. “Our revenue model makes profitably a question of strategy, not time,” he says. “With current scales, Zeek can become profitable today but we are planning to invest heavily in our technology, marketing and generally speaking hyper growth”.To that end, I understand that Zeek has been experimenting with television advertising, which Zelkind says performed “incredibly well” both in terms of user acquisition and building trust."  The interview by CNBC inticates significant coverage reliable sources 

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Daniel Zelkind to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Ymd2004 (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The Forbes site is one of their hosted blog. Forbes explicitly disclaims it right there on the page.
 * The TechCrunch article mentions him only as part of the potentially-notable company; he himself is a passing mention, and it contains no biographical information.
 * The video interview is about the company, not him.
 * Do you have any sources actually about Zelkind? Remember, a BLP must have good sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Any coverage is about Zeek, and Zelkind himself gets only brief passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The one thing that might have some hope is the award, but since we only have the award sourced to a press release on the award, and nothing showing any 3rd party sources noted it at all, there is no indication Zelkind passes the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to Zeek, the company Daniel Zelkind founded. There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources about Daniel Zelkind to establish notability, but a redirect of his article to the article of the company he founded makes sense. Cunard (talk) 05:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as what is stated is that he's best and solely known for the company itself; any such available information is imaginably going to be connected to the company of course, therefore there's still nothing actually convincing for his own confirmed convincing and notable article. SwisterTwister   talk  02:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect to Zeek. Easily mergeable content; valid search term for a redirect. North America1000 07:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge As per above, I don't think a redirect is necessary since nobody will be searching for Daniel Zelkind off the bat. ron az Talk!  12:38, 21 September 2016 (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.