Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoff Smart


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Geoff Smart

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 17:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 17:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The person does seem to be notable, but the promotional format and language is so pervasive that it would be better deleted and rewritten. It is a pair of articles with GhSMART & Company, Inc., which I have just nominated also. Though it could in principle be rewritten I think for this sort of puffery, the balance should lie towards deletion first, and rewriting second,   so as not to leave WP page histories cluttered with bad examples--and to make it clear that this sort of work is not tolerated.  DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. In this case (BLP) it is abundantly clear that an article like this should not be an article. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete agree with Drmies --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep What seems abundantly clear here is a prejudice against the world of business which is so strongly biased that our policy WP:CENSOR seems most appropriate. The idea that we should punish imperfect early drafts about people that we don't like by deleting them is quite contrary to our editing policy.  Note that, if you look at the edit history, there was another attempt at an article about this person, which was obliterated by a redirect.  By preserving the edit history, we are able to follow what's happening here and so try to improve on such faltering attempts.  As it is conceded that the topic is notable, deletion would result in a repetitive cycle of creation and deletion, in which the lessons of history would be obscured.  And, no doubt, some jobsworth would rush to slap a G4 on any attempt to have another try at documenting this notable topic.  Deletion would therefore be doubly disruptive by removing all trace of the existing content and putting bureaucratic obstacles in the path of those who might want to try again.  Such deletion would not be based upon our policies and seems strongly counter to core policy. Warden (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * DGG as a censoring agent? That's...crazy. The lessons of history, that's nice--but any editor can create an article on this person (rather than re-create a fluff piece, which would be really disruptive). There is no bureaucratic obstacle since no one is talking about salting it, and G4 applies only if the "new" version of the article is simply the same unacceptable content which, three editors already agree, is indeed unacceptable. The current content is nothing and does nothing to help an editor write this biography: best to start from scratch with reliable sources, as any article writer (of BLPs) should know. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (reply to Drmies) The current content contains sources such as the Wall Street Journal and Financial Times which are excellent sources for the field of business. Let's consider the first source, for example.  This cites the New York Times to confirm that this author is indeed best-selling.  This source checks out fine - see NYT.  How is this anything but a plain fact which is essential content for a NPOV summary of the person?  The claim that this is just fluff and must be deleted seems to be a blatant falsehood and absurd exaggeration.  As this is a BLP, I must remind you that this cuts both ways.  Insulting this person by suggesting that his accomplishments are insignificant and can be readily discarded as being of no account seems quite derogatory.  It seems quite improper to be making such assertions without, it appears, a scrap of detailed evidence or reasoning from the particulars.  All I'm seeing from the nay-sayers is hand-waving of a very general kind.  Let's have some specifics please.  What exactly is "puffery" and why cannot it be addressed by ordinary editing?  Warden (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a prejudice with respect to articles on the world of business, but it is a prejudice for having more of them — at present I'm one of the handful of good-faith editors who are improving the exiting ones, and trying to write additional ones.  What I do have a prejudice against is the lowest levels of Public relations writing. It's bad enough in its own place on commercial pages, though I wonder how long it will be until those writing meaningless commercial web content realize that it hurts rather than helps the image of their businesses. I especially have a prejudice against it on Wikipedia. It is increasingly degrading the encyclopedia. We had a necessary and successful drive against  uncited bio articles; we are doing increasingly well on copyvio. It's time to take care of this third epidemic.
 * I have almost always argued for keeping and improving existing content, and have joined the Colonel in supporting WP:PRESERVE. But just as I have come to recognize that in general we must get rid of the work of banned editors as one of our few defenses (though not deleting them blindly without first rescuing the few good ones), so I have very reluctantly--if you follow my AfD comments you will know how reluctantly--come to see the need of doing similarly for the worst promotional content. Not all promotional content: I continue to decline as improvable more G11 AfDs than I delete. But it's time for a good pass scraping up and removing the sediment on the bottom. I wish it were possible to turn it to useful purposes, but there's just too much of it, and too few editors willing and able to improve content like this. I am not particularly concerned about not having enough bad examples in the edit history for educational purposes: there will always be a few million ones that will be quite bad enough to show what to avid. Nor am I overly concerned about G4s. The proper handling of G4s is up to the admins--who can see & compare existing and deleted content: some may be careless, but most of us are perceptive enough to see the necessity for it.
 * I have never before taken the lead in saying that some types are so dangerous to warrant this sort of measure; I say it now because the continuing rise in the public's perceived importance of Wikipedia will predictably lead to a potentially disastrous increase of attempted promotional content: if anyone knows at better way of driving off the worst of it, than by having their employers see the failure of such an approach, I have yet to see it. At the DC Wikimania, even the paid editors I spoke to supported the concept of trying to stop the worst of such editors by denying them articles: they know better than I the unlikeliness of reforming the lower levels of their profession.


 * Actually, we have another defense, and the Colonel with his superlative research skills is among those best qualified to do it: preempting the paid editors by having good articles in place for the notable businesses.  DGG ( talk ) 15:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've only just read your comment, DGG, but have to reply in haste as I'll be afk for a while. I'm still not understanding what makes this particular article so egregious, in your view.  Some specifics please. Warden (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm judging this article and the one on the company as a pair; I considerthis reasonable considering the extensive duplication. They show what is in my opinion a cynical effort by someone who understands the details of WP rules, and is using them to undermine the purpose of WP--in other words, not a good-faith editor. Since good faith is something hard for an individual to judge definitively,the suggestion to bring it here was a good one--my initial reaction to use G11 was not the best course, which is why I do not normally delete articles single-handed. Besides the extensive duplication I see the attempt to put all sorts of awards and statements of excellence in the first paragraph,use long strings of management jargon of the lowest degree of originality e.g. "he 100% employee-owned firm specializes in management assessment for pre-hire decisions at the CEO and board levels," "database of thousands of leader biographies" "whose mission is to elevate humanity by identifying, developing, and deploying society's greatest leaders",  --and I fell a high degree of impatience with people who call themselves Social entrepreneur, in both  their infobox and lede paragraph,  and use the term once more in claiming authorship of a book about which  books that "Three United States governors, social entrepreneurs ... and over 30 CEOs have endorsed ... prior to its forthcoming publication" I don't like to  use a few selected quotes of the low points to condemn an article, but  these are random, not selected: any four sentences of the article would be just as irremediable. Any notable or non-notable person deserves this sort of thing stricken from the record.    DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * When I myself consider the four sentences that you've picked out, I find the first two to be bland statements of fact without much in the way of spin. They seem fine.  The other two are too promotional in tone for my taste too.  I would prune the latter and keep the former.  I'm really not seeing what the problem is with "database of thousands of leader biographies", for example.  What's the problem in saying this as it seems very relevant for a company that specialises in executive search.  The source article in the WSJ indicates that they use this database in an especially scientific and analytical way and that their methods have attracted academic interest.  This seems good information and we might profit from studying their methods as Wikipedia has a database of thousands of biographies too.  Anyway, thanks for the feedback; it seems that we must agree to disagree. Warden (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the elements of these sentences that struck me is the use of"leader biographies" instead of executive biographies" or plain "biographies";, "pre-hire decisions" for employment decisions, and those only "at the CEO and board levels" -- the attempt to find phrasing to indicate that the firm deals only with important people. It's boasting, not description, with an attempt to attract attention by unusual phrases. Standard advertising techniques, but not encyclopedic. Again, they are not selected phrases: I could find such stuff anywhere in the article. I'm trying to explain why I noticed this one. But the final reason that caused me to lose patience was the duplication of content with the company, not a good-faith technique.    DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Choosing the leader of an organisation is quite a big deal - just look at all the fuss about Marissa Mayer today. If the subject specialises in this then this doesn't seem surprising.  Warden (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep It is not elegantly written, but when you need a source for every word the article becomes "choppy" by default. At any rate, now it's a well-sourced article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gubina (talk • contribs) 11:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm with DGG and Drmies here: perhaps the guy is notable, but who can see that through this horrible PR-language article? "His professional mission is to create, communicate, and put into practice useful ideas about leadership"? Really? That's his goal in life or was it his PR adviser writing this drivel? Reading this thing, I think it could reasonably have been speedied as spam. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2012 (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.