Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Imbruce


 * 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 Qwiki.  Sandstein  18:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Doug Imbruce

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable entrepreneur. He is associated with one notable entity, Qwiki, but not independently notable. Article copy is mostly about the company. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions, WP:SPIP and / or not independent of the company. The company has been acquired in 2013; the subject does not appear to have done anything notable in other ventures since. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The editor nominating this article for deletion cannot justify that this article refers to a person who is not notable. The individual clearly obtained many press mentions over a lengthy period of time, as demonstrated in the RS, including three mentions as "Highest in class" awards - as the winner of TechCrunch Disrupt, and being named on "Top 100" lists by Business Insider over a number of years - for achievements on opposite coasts. The article also clearly states the individual is currently active as an investor, with investments current as of 2018, including many best in class companies (IE, "Uber"). With so many RS, the deletion of this article (which has existed since 2010) is puzzling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.109.165 (talk) 04:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note Section subheaders are unhelpful in AfD discussions, as they add a confusing ToC entry to any page in which this page is transcluded. I have removed the section subheader from the above comment. Bakazaka (talk) 05:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Qwiki. I was going to say merge, but there really is very little substantial, independent coverage of the person as opposed to their business. What he is known and covered for is Qwiki, that's where the name should point you. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Qwiki, as per Elimdae. Searches did not turn up significant coverage about him.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Nom's comment: I'm not a fan of redirecting nn BLPs to company names; the company article may get merged, while the name would still link there. Additionally, the redirects had been undone on a fairly regular basis in the past, including most recently by an apparently involved / COI-driven IP who commented at the top of the nomination. I would go with a "delete" for these two reasons. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, although for the latter motivation that would only make a difference in combination with salting. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect - The subject has only accrued passing mentions in WP:RS, mostly due to his association with Qwiki. Content directly concerning the individual is all either trivial or as a part of listings, indicating a WP:SIGCOV failure.--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete and then redirect- He fails WP:GNG for lack of secondary sources coverage that is WP:SIGCOV. Like the nominator has said, just redirecting this article alone would not be a great choice because someone can just revert it back (without also even noticing the one who did a redirect). I feel delete then redirect should be more often with AfD closures in my opinion, exactly because redirects can be easily reverted. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:27, 21 November 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.