Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim DeBerry


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Jim DeBerry

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is the most thoroughly researched article of someone not notable that I have ever seen! Nevertheless, the person is clearly nn. Lots of local, self-placed handouts, pr, etc. Too many jobs for which he is "notable" is a giveaway. Specialization is routine for truly notable people. Does he make swimming pools? Musician? Radio personality? These each can be done with some notability by someone, but not really all three at the same time. Just a normal, everyday self-promoter. Student7 (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment i believe this article is a keep. This article was approved by multiple editors. the article clearly has gain national attention. the article person is a virtuoso in two different paragraphs. the article person is in on it? i do not understand the statement. the simple explanation is rome was not built overnight as the wiki TOC suggested for article creations. This article went through AFC, got picked over 45 days, reviewed and thoughts placed on how to make it a better article by multiple editors in chats and asking opinions and sorting it out to make it a quality article. the deleting suggester appears to be searching to find a reason to slight a good article. other good articles that are worthiness such as this one do exist. the PR is not self placed, it's from precision records,, the claims of someone doing multiple notable things is not likely in my opinion a little bit different. can't good potential other editors exist and contribute? the point that multiple entertainer or craftsman don't exist how about such as ryan seacrest? carson daily, adam corolla, bubba the love sponge, even politicians who have careers before being a politician. entertainers often do multiple things, many notable people do many skilled things thats why they are notable. as well this article has a clear timeline. notable people do notable things and doing more than one things should not be a reason to judge against an article creation. the local claim is unfounded, national publications such as aqua magazine and pool and spa news are not local, touring in a band is not local. a radio show is multiple cities is not local. lets be fair and lets keep the article and let it be built upon by other editors. i re-read the reasons for deletion under the deletion policy, this article merits a stay not deletion. the comments by the editor who suggested deletion are reasons i believe is a little bit tough and unfounded. WinsnerB1942 (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Pending further review of the sources, which should decide this pretty effectively, I'll note at this point that the article definitely needs a cleanup to remove all hints of bias, non-neutral POV, and promotional tone. I personally wouldn't have cleared this through AFC in its current state for those reasons, having not looked at the sourcing yet. I'll also suggest to the article's author, WinsnerB1942, that you try to not take the nomination personally or as an "attack," as I'm sure it's not intended as such. That your article passed muster at AFC is a good sign, but I suggest instead of quibbling about "elitist wiki editor" type stuff, you simply supply a Keep vote and a clearly expressed rationale. Pick out what you feel are the best 2-3 sources in the article that help make it notable. That's all you need to and ought to do. I will look at this later (assuming/hoping I remember to when I get back home). Cheers, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  21:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * CommentDuly noted on the comments. the article has been picked apart from various editors and suggestions causing multiple changes. the reference sources had been less but other editors wanted more and approved them, so they are in. other editors wanted them. i am hopeful to see some Inclusionist, retention of "harmless" articles and articles otherwise deemed substandard to allow for future improvement. Inclusionist viewpoints are commonly motivated by a desire to keep Wikipedia broad in coverage with a much lower entry barrier for topics covered – along with the belief in that it is impossible to tell what knowledge might be "useful" or productive, that content often starts poor and is improved if time is allowed, that there is effectively no incremental cost of coverage, that arbitrary lines in the sand are unhelpful and may prove divisive, and that goodwill requires avoiding arbitrary deletion of others' work which i feel in this case. Some extend this to include allowing a wider range of sources. i firmly believe this article will improve over time and grow.WinsnerB1942 (talk) 22:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: WinsnerB1942 came to looking for an inclusionist for a keep vote and clearly stated that. This concerns me as a potential canvassing issue. --LauraHale (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Further commenting: I do not believe this was intended to violate the rules, but rather a new user not understanding fully how Wikipedia works. --LauraHale (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: While I am generally an inclusionist, I did not find any references searching through news.google.com, through Newsbank, through Trove, in Google Books, on World Cat. While the sources are in the article, I'm not sure " Pool & Spa News" should be used as a website used for notability purposes.  The article doesn't make clear how the subject is notable. How popular was his radio show and what were the ratings? Why is a C-Level manager notable? --LauraHale (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If the article is gutted, leaving only source that confer notability along with facts from those, I would be happy to re-evaluate my position. --LauraHale (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Quick question: is there a policy or guideline you can point to that supports discounting independent sources with a very narrow scope (e.g. Pool & Spa News)? I have definitely been involved in deletion discussions that came down to whether or not such sources were acceptable in the past, but I personally can't recall if and/or what guideline(s) apply to this. Note: this is not a "gotcha" question, I'm sincerely curious :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  13:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: after speaking to the previous user in a chat, she made statements that she'd only accept sources found in newspapers through her way of searching for sources. she also suggested the only she'd change her mind was article must be gutted to her liking not necessary wiki guidelines. i made a solid effort to appease the editor to resolve and the editor did open slightly to be somewhat favorable, i bent pretty far as pretzel could go without breaking to appease. i'm hopeful the editor and others will be a little more willing to include this article, i read the living person afd list and the keeps afterwards and it does not appear very favorable for anyone to create an article of a living person, might explain the frustration with users comments over the web in regards to wiki deletions. i believe the grounds for deletion are not with merit while the grounds for creation are, i did revise the article for laurahale to her request from our chat WinsnerB1942 (talk) 05:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete! I have to agree with the nominator here, sounds too good to be true. He prabably has a career as a swimming pool executive, he's played in various bands and been on the radio, but he is not notable for any of it as far as I can tell. According to one of the sources, he's been on the road between the mid-nineties until 2007, playing more than 2400 shows around North America. This happened at the same time as hosting a radio show, raising a family, and building his career in the swimming pool industry (which started in 1996). As far as I can tell, this has been blown out of all proportions in an attempt to gain notability he doesn't have. As for the comment made by User:WinsnerB1942 above "This article was approved by multiple editors."; nope, that didn't happen, at least not by judging the article or talkpage. The article was reviewed and rejected three times, before User:Rcsprinter123 accepted it. (I've asked him to check this AFD btw, just to see if he has any thoughts on the matter.) Bjelleklang -  talk 12:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: For what it's worth, articles on the subject has been created (and speedily deleted for being NN) twice before on May 14th. 2012 and April 25th. 2012.. Bjelleklang -  talk 12:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I Have No Idea - This is an odd one. The content of the article reads like an obvious candidate for deletion. It's blatantly promotional in tone, and I agree with previous commenters' suggestion that jumping between all these different "cases" for notability smacks of...something like desperation, although that's probably a strong word for it. On the other hand, "Pool & Spa News" appears to be an independent source which publishes content subject to editorial review, which suggests that it passes muster as a reliable source -- and there's no question of whether or not the subject of the article is covered multiple times and at significant length in this source (and one or two others of more questionable quality). On the other other hand, I personally tend to discount sources with as narrow a topical focus as "Pool & Spa News." Regardless, I strongly suggest to the author of the article that they take LauraHale's kind suggestion and pare the article down to just those facts and details which most strongly support a case for notability and remove any hint of a promotional tone. Subjective sentences like "These simple beginnings lead the foundation of one of the industry's most prominent rises" are pure puffery. I'd avoid lines like that when writing about The Beatles, let alone Jim DeBerry, and your content is far more likely to be viewed positively if it's clean and objective :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  13:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - While Pool & Spa News may be independent it is a trade magazine and creates a "big fish, small pond" situation where no real sense of the importance of the subject can be drawn as nearly every individual running a similar company will receive similar coverage in it. This is why we need mainstream press (a Big pond) to identify the particular subjects that deserve to stand out. The same can be said of nearly all the sources used here, non notable magazines, radio shows, etc. These may be fine for fact checking but do not confer any notability to the subject. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if this were on any other subject I'd say keep, but there's just no way he passes WP:N or WP:GNG. Stuart is right about the Pool & Spa News...he doesn't satisfy WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, to me, in that respect. Thus, I vote delete. Go   Phightins  !  20:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment on potential canvassing. Recieved message on my talk page requesting improvement and/or comment on this page. I'm not sure what people want to think about this, so... Yeah. I'll leave it to you all. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 22:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Redacted, user explained error. I do apologize to all. Sorry! gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 23:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 'Comment i clicked on user gwickwire who by my oversight thought was the direct to ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  talk page while visiting  ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  talk page honest mistake WinsnerB1942 (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 'Comment I think its a keep guys, since I've checked the sources and come to the conclusion that it deserves a place here. I don't see why it should be deleted. Huzzy 06:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huzzy786 (talk • contribs)
 * Note: Huzzy786 was the person who created the two previous incarnations of the article. Bjelleklang -  talk 09:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per the nominator, removing the questionable content and sources and you would be left with an article that fails WP:GNB. Clearly someone has done a lot of work to make him look notable but sorry, he isn't. Bidgee (talk) 10:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: I moved a long comment from User:WinsnerB1942 to the talkpage in order to respond, as it addressed myself on several points. Bjelleklang -  talk 13:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as subject is not notable. Automatic  Strikeout  18:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - The sourcing is marginal at best. -- Whpq (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: This article is crap! No notability whatsoever! Coltsfan (talk) 17:08, 24 October 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.