Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Carlson (rower)


 * 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 keep. There is consensus that the mentioned flaws in the article can be addressed by editing while the subject itself is notable enough for inclusion.  So Why  10:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Jack Carlson (rower)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Many of the sources linked to in this article are either blogs or do not mention the subject at all. Several of them are clearly self serving and shoehorned in for no apparent purpose (particularly offensive are a number of self publish articles that are included just so the author can claim he has published numerous articles on "a variety of subjects"). Poor sources indicate padding of resume for low-profile individual. Suggest immediate deletion as not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.167.154 (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * This stated reasons for this Unsigned IP WP:SPA nomination for deletion (weak or irrelevant sources; "self publish articles") are incorrect. Literally none of the sources linked in this article are blogs, and they all mention the subject. None of them are self-publish articles either. The sources cited include The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Vanity Fair, the subject's International Rowing Federation athlete bio, and the subject's USRowing team bio; additionally articles authored by the subject in Antiquity (journal) and Foreign Policy Magazine are cited. These are strong, reliable, and relevant sources. --Cozeyalley111 (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)  Blocked sock. Worldbruce (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copied from article talk page.  I have not yet formulated an opinion at this time.  --Finngall talk  05:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss  fortune 05:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss  fortune 05:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss  fortune 05:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss  fortune 05:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss  fortune 05:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss  fortune 05:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss  fortune 05:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss  fortune 05:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Deletion rationale has no merit. Carlson is a World Championship medallist and University Boat Race winner, with plenty of coverage in reliable sources (, , , , , etc.). --Michig (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - non-notable, reads and looks like promotional work, as does the rationale behind the image. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain why you believe a rower who won a World Championships bronze medal is 'non-notable'? --Michig (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A Bronze medal is not notable these days. It might have been in the very first Olympics. Even Gold may not be enough (especially in fringe sport, such as this), you need multiple golds and domination of the activity, possibly over successive Olympics. In any case this article and everything about it reeks of finely crafted promotional work. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your view doesn't tally at all well with our notability guidelines for sportspeople. --Michig (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment The article has the hallmarks of undisclosed paid editing. Hours after their first edit (unrelated), a WP:SPA creates with their second edit this well-formed article with 46 impecably formated references, an infobox, correctly piped links, categories, close compliance with the Manual of Style, etc. Their only other edits, the following week, are to create a disambigution page for the topic. Later on,, another SPA, adds a studio portrait. Green Room Creative is a New York City marketing agency that boasts Carlson's company Rowing Blazers as a client. A third SPA comes along and, after a few hours updating this article, submits a draft about the company, Draft:Rowing Blazers. A fourth editor, not quite a SPA, spends 7 of their 16 edits, spread out over five different days spanning nearly a month, to tweak Jack Carlson (rower) and Draft:Rowing Blazers, and link to Carlson from other articles. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - is clearly promotional work. Material regarding rowing already covered by article detailing with those races (is conspicuous that none of the other rowers on the team with Carlson have personal articles).


 * Keep. Deletion rationale is stated as weak sources. But in reality, the sources quite literally include a New York Times profile of the subject. Besides the New York Times piece, there are articles from The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg News and Town & Country Magazine. Also cited are academic articles authored by the subject in Antiquity (journal) and Foreign Policy Magazine and the subject's official USRowing team athlete biography. I must also note that I was queried by Worldbruce about whether or not I am a paid editor. I was quite shocked by this but appreciate the concern. I am not a paid editor; just someone who has followed this subject's career for some time. --Cozeyalley111 (talk) 04:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)  Blocked sock. Worldbruce (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. The individual covered here is a notable person in the world of fashion as well as rowing and an award-winning author. The page has also been active since 2015 with edits from many different users. In addition to the variety of important publications mentioned above profiling him such as the New York Times, I think it is worth noting that the IP address user 38.104.167.154 has been censured for incorrect and inappropriate edits in the past. --Utraqueunum (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock. Worldbruce (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Deletion rationale has no merit. All cited sources are relevant and reliable. 2A02:A210:2044:300:9876:F943:75E7:C2FB (talk) 09:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * One of those sources is literally the subject's own website. Another, "Hear the Boat Sing" literally bills itself as "This blog covers all aspects of the rich history of rowing".


 * If the Unsigned IP poster would take the time to read WP:IRS, they would find that citing a subject's own website to support a statement that the subject is (for example) a vegetarian (which happens to be the only piece of information citing the subject's website in this article) is actually perfectly acceptable: the statement is not "unduly self-serving;" it is not a "claim about a third party" or "unrelated event;" there is "no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" (unless the Unsigned IP poster has some evidence to suggest Mr Carlson is not a vegetarian); and "the article is not primarily based on such sources." In fact, the vegetarian statement was the only statement citing the subject's website, and almost all of the other 24 citations are from top-tier news sources, including (it has been said before) The New York Times; the remainder of the sources being composed of official athlete biographies, Henley Royal Regatta and Head of the Charles Regatta official records and results, academic journals, and apparently one blog about rowing that is causing Unsigned IP poster so much distress. The sustained effort by said Unsigned IP poster to misrepresent an objectively well-cited article as one in which "many of the sources are blogs or do not mention the subject at all," combined with their characterization of the subject - a member of multiple USA national teams recently profiled in The New York Times - as a "low profile individual," as well as the bewildering and denigrating comments above stating that, "A Bronze medal is not notable these days. It might have been in the very first Olympics. Even Gold may not be enough (especially in fringe sport, such as this)", seem to belie some personal agenda or bias against the subject.-- Cozyalley111 (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)  Blocked sock. Worldbruce (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. It seems that the individual described here does have the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject required under the Notability Guidelines, not just the notability guidelines for sports and athletes, but also for books and for people. --Georgetownhoya (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)  Blocked sock. Worldbruce (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Just to be a voice of reason here, as it seems there is some bias on both sides. The request for deletion said this article was based on bad sources and that this person is a “low-profile” individual. But this is wrong. The sources are very strong. Major news sources like a full article in New York Times. And as someone (only tangentially) involved in the sport of rowing in another country, I can tell you that this person is prominent in the sport, as both an athlete and an author. The article’s sources confirm this too. I don’t want to get involved in any weirdness. Just a rowing fan who can confirm the subject’s relevance! 2A02:A210:2044:300:9035:89D7:5988:2D14 (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep but Trim and Significantly Rewrite (disclosure: I was invited to come here through a comment on my Talk page) WP:ATHLETE does not have a specific criteria for rowers. However, in general, the criteria for other non-Olympic sportspersons is that they have won a gold medal at their sports' world championship (if a team sport) or any medal (if an individual sport). If we cross-apply that here, Jack Carlson does not qualify for an article under ATHLETE as he won a bronze medal in a team sport, a view also echoed by BeckenhamBear. 
 * I now move on to see if he meets GNG. Many of the sources in the article are not RS (e.g. blogspot, heartheboatsing.com, etc.). There are, however, many that are (e.g. Wall Street Journal, NY Times, etc.). However, the articles that are RS only cover Jack Carlson within the context of his company Rowing Blazers and do not provide any deep biographical information on him. Even a CEO profile story or two would help validate this article but we don't have that. That said, via a search on Google News I found a couple articles which - while still focused on his company - do provide enough scraps of biographical data here and there to pass the GNG threshold, namely: this in The Observer, this in the Boston Globe , and this in Complex . If the final decision is KEEP, this article should be substantially rewritten to remove statements supported by non-RS, to introduce new RS sources, and to tone down the rah-rah aspects a bit. A short and succinct bio is warranted, however, the current sprawling article is probably overreach. Chetsford (talk) 06:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep as per the references identified in the preceding post and also by Michig, he passes WP:GNG and the SNG with a bronze medal in a world cup. However the article needs to be carefully checked for neutrality given the SPAs and socks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:08, 11 January 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.