Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason J. Hogg


 * 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric  05:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Jason J. Hogg

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is yet another promotional puff piece, the resume of a business person where the references are either on promotional/business directory-style websites, or user-submitted (like the Bloomberg profile). Drmies (talk) 01:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  01:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - despite the claims, this subject seems to be an ordinary business person. Bearian (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - I can definitely see why this was flagged for deletion, but I'm finding reliable, third-party sources on this subject that demonstrate an ongoing narrative from major publication sources. It seems like this is more of a case of wp:NOTDONE and not outside of the scope of WP:BIO or lacking in notability. To that end, I've started to clean this article up and add some details and sources, as well as cleaning house with a lot of the old stuff. I will be back tomorrow to make another round of improvements, and see if we can't turn this into something worthwhile. Bear in mind that the current content is rough, and a couple of the articles (Bloomberg and BusinessWeek) do not mention Hogg -- but support other stated facts -- and still need to be replaced with better, more primary citations to avoid looking like WP:BOMBARDMENT. I'm planning on addressing that in the next few days as well. LaesaMajestas (talk) 23:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've made many edits today, and cleaned up the references. I still have a lot of overhauling to do; I'm going to come back to this again tomorrow and do another round. I think it's looking a lot better, but we still need more references that are better on point, and I have a sizable list of tweaks and adds I still want to make. I also haven't touched the "Contributions" section at all, except for technical cleanup of the references.LaesaMajestas (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've made a final major round of edits and revisions. I got rid of the promotional-sounding contributions section and replaced it with some details about his patents (there are many). I'll be in and out throughout the week to tweak, but this is the bulk of the work I'd planned to do on the article. Would love to hear others' thoughts and discussion around what's there now.LaesaMajestas (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- a promotional CV of a nn CEO. WP:ADVOCACY is evident in the Jason_J._Hogg section with tell-tale external links to said patents. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn nor a sales brochure. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Should the patent section simply be removed? (I'm not new with Wikipedia, but I'm not as experienced as some -- would be appreciative for the guidance.) Barring that, the stronger citations for the article include the New York Times, Inc., Wall Street Journal, Fortune, and several niche sources that I felt smacked of more than sufficient notability. LaesaMajestas (talk) 11:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I boldly blanked the section, which doesn't contribute to GNG or lack thereof one way of the other. Green links in the body of an article are generally regarded as a party foul; it might be possible to redo these moving the green links to footnotes, which would be fine. Carrite (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To address the changes made by LaesaMajestas

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  17:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Close call, but the article as currently revised appears to fulfill GNG. Carrite (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2017 (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.