Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harris Schachter


 * 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. Seems like the article as-is does not meet notability due to weak sourcing and no good sources were found. Also, what is a "notable source"? Notability does not apply to individual sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Harris Schachter

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

References given appear to consist of blogs or to places where the subject may have self-assert "expert" status that lacks independence from the subject. Aside from problems with WP:CITEOVERKILL, the article doesn't provide evidence of having meet WP:GNG. I strongly suspect WP:COI issues as well. KDS4444 (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Reduced citations to half. References are from third-party publishers, "expert" status given by independent sources rather than individual.

Re:WP:GNG - Pre GUidelines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline

All cited sources are from third parties. "Significant coverage" - No other individuals by the name Harris Schachter exist "Reliable" - Editorial integrity is established by secondary sources "Sources" - No duplicate sources are cited "Independent of the subject" - None of the sources cited are works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it "Presumed" - Subject has significant coverage from reliable sources

Notability established by significant number of references provided in the article and on the webHRA5967 (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Again with a nominated-article defender's argument of "BLP sources are out there on the web," yet they're not in the article. That being said, subject does indeed fail WP:BIO as a search turned up absolutely no notable third-party sources. sixty nine   • speak up •  18:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

BLP sources are cited within References section. No WP:BIO as this is the first article entered into Wiki for this individual.HRA5967 (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * What sources? What few bits of actual biographical detail are in the article don't seem to have sources. Where did they come from? --Calton | Talk 02:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Provided references do not satisfy WP:GNG, nothing better found. -- Finngall   talk  02:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not seeing any evidence -- in or out of the article -- that anyone has noticed this guy as anything other than a source of quotes. --Calton | Talk 02:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Does not pass NPROF, NAUTHOR or GNG. John from Idegon (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I might be convinced to change if someone were to find more solid reliable sources showing his notability, but I didn't find them. Part of the problem seems to be that since his professional area of expertise is online matters: blogging, social media, search engine optimization, etc., many of the sources are themselves social media. What do we do with an online interview (basically a blog) about him being a successful blogger? Meters (talk) 03:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * (And that is a good question... The Wikipedian in me says, "Is the source subject to editorial oversight and fact checking?  If not, then it is only a series of personal observations."  And while that may be fine for referencing minor personal information in an article whose subject has had its notability established by other sources, it isn't useful for substantiating that notability.  Or so I sense it to work.  KDS4444 (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC))


 * Weak Delete, not seeing any RS establishing notability, but am open to be convinced, lets see some RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Provided sources satisfy WP:GNG definition of "reliable" as they are all third party sources. Simple Google search of subject reveals significantly more sources and notability. This is an objective page describing the career of an un-ambiguous personality.


 * Additional RS hereHRA5967 (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * — Note to closing admin: HRA5967 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.


 * Of the 10 pages on the first page of results none of them are of any use. Two of them are not even for the right person. Giving us a Google search is not of much use. If you have sources you believe are reliable sources that can be used to establish Harris Schachter's notability then please give them to us. Meters (talk) 23:37, 23 December 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.