Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Grossman (consultant) (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.  Sandstein  09:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

David Grossman (consultant)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Basically still an advertorial job listing since nominated in January, examining this found nothing at all substantially better apart from interviews, press releases, his own authored articles, trivial passing mentions and other unacceptable sources; my own searches have also mirrored this by noticeably finding only press releases and mentions. The 2 sources listed at the other AfD were simply interviews and nothing else convincing. That also seems to the basis here, "inheriting notability" from the listed notable news sources and even the "Keep" votes were either saying "they liked his work" (the article's author) or "the article is (quote) bloated, feels promotional, probably needs much trimming"....and there's summarily nothing to suggest confidently improving and keeping. SwisterTwister  talk  22:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  22:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - the considerable effort involved in wading through all the references was not rewarded in any way with any sense of notability. It reads like the work of a dutiful acolyte, although I guess that probably isn't so, but it is just a puff piece.  Velella  Velella Talk 00:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of notability. Just a worthy but routine corporate person. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC).
 * Keep Agree previous article was bloated with cruft and promotional junk but this has been removed as per WP:HEYMANN and fixed up, and Grossman is regarded as an expert in internal corporate communications -- that is the story -- the David Grossman of Freshii is different (if you google "David Grossman" and "Freshii" with images, you'll see a different face).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * While the changes may be noticeable, I'm still not seeing enough to convincingly suggest keeping. SwisterTwister   talk  00:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Where is the evidence that Grossman is regarded as an expert in internal corporate communications? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC).
 * The Wall Street Journal and Globe & Mail and Chicago Tribune and other highly-regarded publications consider him as an expert, quoting his studies about emails and inter-office communication again and again.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We required multiple in-depth treatments. There is nothing on GS or GB. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC).
 * Grossman gets a lot of ink here and almost an entire article here and here and here. There are about 16 solid references as of this revamped version. The Chicago Tribune interviews him in-depth here. Seems to me he clearly meets WP:RS or WP:BLP.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Feeble indeed. Just passing mentions on blogs or blurb from trade journalists desperate to salvage copy from a PR release. Wikipedia requires evidence of substantial career achievement. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC).
 * Curious -- does the Sewer, Gas & Electric stuff belong on this page for some reason?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that it was a vandalizing IP. SwisterTwister   talk  00:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- non notable consultant with advice such as "To cope with overloaded email inboxes, Grossman does not believe in email black-outs or time-outs, but that a better arrangement is to encourage better use of email by employees." The sourcing does not suggest notability to me. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. A person is not notable in his field if the only way he can get a book published presenting his work is to do it himself via AuthorHouse. The asserted publisher of the 2nd ed., "Little Brown Dog Publishing" is an imprint owned by his company for the sole purpose of  publishing his work  The current articles is about as much of an advertisement as the previous--the quotations in the sources demonstrate the promotional  intent, and the promotional  result. This is almost a G11, and I was amazed when it was kept at AfD1.  The effort made it improving it was substantial, but it failed, because the article is hopeless--there is not enough notability or true non-PR sources to write an article.  DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete no sources about him directly. non-notable.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a puff piece that would need a fundamental rewrite even if notability was not a concern. Tazerdadog (talk) 07:15, 6 August 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.