Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Rezab


 * 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. Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Jan Rezab

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a simple violation of AUTO and NPOV. It was exclusively created by a user with the same name as the subject of the article. It also does not make a good case for BIO, as none of the references proclaim the notability of the subject. Pianoman320 (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: Clearly an autobiography. KGirlTrucker81talk what I'm been doing 20:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: I understand that there is a rule - but it's only discouraged. Wiki rules say: If you create an autobiography, you must have no promotional intent - which it did not, and must be willing to accept it being neutralized (I do accept it - it is very similar to the Czech Wikipedia page which I did not create). I do not get the point that the references do not proclaim notability - which of the articles, which of the points specifically? Many other members of Forbes 30 under 30 group with similar accomplishments are on Wikipedia - for example Brian_Wong and countless others. I tried to be objective, not promotional, and source every single line I wrote - as I knew there is a bias. If anyone feels to edit it - please do so indeed! Bio rules also say: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." The Ernst&Young Awards and Forbes 30 under 30 awards should count. And again, I welcome any addition to the page itself. Jan.Rezabtalk 22:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete with full force and vigore. This person is a non-notable business person. People should never create articles on themselves, and we should made it automatic grounds for deletion. If someone else has not felt it worth creating an article on you, than you are not notable enough for an article. If you really are, someone will create one. This rule keeps people like my friend who anonymously ran an online Harry Potter fan fiction forum and thought she was clearly notable because of it from creating an article on herself. Not autobiographies. If you are really notable go get an actual book publisher to publisher your autobiography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, its not a rule - it's discouraged - not a rule. Non-notable? Click on any link above, awards, achievements, quotations, 250 book mentions? There are so many people on Wiki with nowhere near that. I get that soft rule (not a hard rule) - but why not, if I quoted everything well? I was not aware of the autobioghraphical rules before I obviously did it, but realized each line would have to be perfectly quoted from outside sources.
 * Quoting the entire policy with commentary: Jan.Rezabtalk  18:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * If you create an autobiography, you must have no promotional intent ( Jan.Rezab Doesn't have) and must be willing to accept it being neutralized ( Jan.Rezab No problem) if it is not neutral, or even deleted if it comes to that. If you do turn out to be notable, you must expect the article to stay ( Jan.Rezab Please rate this, again, many fellow Forbes 30 under 30 folks are here) —you cannot just get it deleted because you are not happy with it. Our neutral point of view policy is absolute and non-negotiable ( Jan.Rezab This is perfect!), and all encyclopedic topics are fair game for Wikipedia.


 * Finally, you should also consider the time and effort expended by the Wikipedia community, as well as the impact to your reputation. Even if you do manage to pull off a neutral, verifiable autobiography, the very fact that so many autobiographies have not been that way has trained Wikipedians to expect the opposite ( Jan.Rezab So it seems...) —and hence editors may feel they are wasting their time or effort if they become provoked by the fact it's still an autobiography, regardless of policy compliance. This may also result in a reputation hit not only because you violated the guideline, but also because editors may feel that you have wasted their effort. ( Jan.Rezab I hope I have not...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan.rezab (talk • contribs) 18:52, 27 July 2016‎


 * Delete. It's obviously an autobiography used to promote the achievements of the individual and increase brand exposure of the currently operating companies. Without having a third-party publisher, it subjects the article to WP:NOTOPINION, and therefore, is not objective and is clearly exemplified in the "Public Speaking & Conferences" section. The "Socialbakers" section borders on WP:NOTADVOCATE as the underlying objective is to showcase the success of the company. Additionally, the mention of the "Socially Devoted" benchmark is WP:PROMOTION as it's attempting to garner attention to a measurement that was created under a privately held enterprise. That being said, if the content of this section were re-written in a more objective manner, then it could be seen fit to stand. Within the "History" section, the statement that Socialbakers has raised "more than 30 million" is not factual; if anything, the exact amount of money raised should be stated. Overall, I'd suggest template:ad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejames11 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 29 July 2016‎


 * I fixed the funding, the third party publishers are mostly there, right? I already talk about the Socially Devoted award below. Could you guys actually edit the page itself? Jan.Rezabtalk 18:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * We could, but why would we if we think the article should be deleted? Expecting volunteers to help you clean up after yourself when writing advertising is totally unrealistic. Grayfell (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'll get to Rezab's comments in a second, but only in extreme cases should an article be deleted based on intent. In this case, sources do not meet notability guidelines, and are mostly flimsy PR and churnalism used as WP:BOMBARDMENT. Many of the sources don't even mention Rezab at all. The Forbes thing is puff. It's a listicle which is widely abused to suggest notability, but is a very poor indicator. It's divided into 20 subcategories, making for 600 entries a year, and reliable comments about the list itself are thin. The article could be used as a source itself, but it says almost nothing. Just mentioning the listing is not informative, and further supports that this is based more on self-promotion than being neutral and informative.
 * Rezab's good-faith comments are noted, but this is a volunteer encyclopedia, not a free PR service. The existence of thinly-veiled advertising like this diminished the quality and reputation of the encyclopedia, and therefore diminishes the work we all do. The article definitely has serious advertising and promotional problems. Claiming that you have no promotional intent is unprovable and in this case, so unbelievable it's hard not to find it insulting. There are too many vague but flattering claims and promotional tidbits included here to accept that. This article reads like advertising, and either you cannot see it because you are not impartial, or you do see it but are pretending otherwise, which is even worse. Either way, this is a great example of why autobiographies are so strongly discouraged. Grayfell (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Re. Forbes 30 under 30 notability - I leave that with you guys to review - I was the featured in one of the 20 categories, and the process was quite massive. Re. Socially Devoted - Try searching for Socially Devoted on LinkedIn for example, 2200 people worldwide use it as a "skill" and list it as an achievements, there are quite many news mentions of it and in that part of the industry, it is actually considered an industry standard quite quite high awareness. All of this is easily verifyable. There are third-party publishers everywhere in the article, right? I tried mostly fact-based elements. I understand now why this is discouraged, very clearly. What do you suggest we do with the article, Delete? or is there any way to fix it? Jan.Rezabtalk  18:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I said delete and that's what I meant. There is no question mark at the end of that. This is just spam dressed in corporate buzzwords. LinkedIn isn't a reliable source at all. Not even close. The "Socially Devoted" thing is not a claim to notability, it's a product you're trying to promoting through Wikipedia, and right now it just looks like a gimmick sourced to press releases. Grayfell (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Re. Socially Devoted - its actually not a product, but was launched as an open standard. Its not a product, you can't "buy it", in fact, it was adopted by many organization and the underlying metric hsa been implemented in the Media Rating Councils guidelines (which I do link). I understand all your points. I do not use LinkedIn for any sourcing in my article - I just used it as an example, and while its not a source, the fact that so many people have used this is a sign of its adoption. People across countries and industries use it to define their skills. Again, not a "product" - an open standard (anyone can use, adopt it, it is not trademarked by the company for that purpose) Jan.rezab (talk) 23:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It's something you created that you are trying to 'sell'. The adoption of this standard benefits you, and is closely associated with your company and your reputation. It's a "product" in that sense, and that's the sense that matters. What is the Media Rating Council? Nobody else seems to care about that. Please stop trying to promote your company and your ideas on this deletion discussion! Stop doing that anywhere else on Wikipedia, also. Grayfell (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Whats the Media Rating Council? Only the most important institution when it comes to making decisions regarding standards. They defined viewability on the web, they defined video, mobile, and many other advertising standards incl. Viewable Impression and others. Why these guys do not have a Wikipedia page really escapes me. I don't believe promoting ideas on a wiki deletion thread does a lot of work, I was just trying to justify some of the notes - thats all. On other points, I disagree, but you make a point of view. If only someone looked into it a bit more. Jan.rezab (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete This is clearly promotional. Should it come back created by a neutral third party I might be inclined to give it more credence. I admit that the unbounded and continued promotion by the creator/autobiographer, in spite of clear statements relating to WP policy, make this very hard to accept. The same person has created an extensive article for the company. It amazes me that someone is unable to understand the deep insult that these articles deliver to those of us who see WP as a source of neutral information, not for personal promotion. I think this should be deleted under WP:PROMO. I also think we ought to watch these articles because anyone so unable to read WP's culture would also be likely to hire out the promotion if it fails under his own name. Honestly, it's offensive. LaMona (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment In case the article Jan Rezab is (shortened and) kept, I suggest to merge it with unsourced article Redboss. JanSuchy (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.