Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy LaRose


 * 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Jimmy LaRose

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article on a non-notable entrepreneur/motivational speaker. Deliberate attempt to avoid the AfC process as a copy of this article (other editors have already taken out some content), Draft:James Paul LaRose was rejected a few weeks ago. GPL93 (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Author-Says-Feasibility/228545
 * There are quite a few notable articles in circulation for this person not mentioned on the article.

https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Opinion-Fundraising/228989

http://www.byerlyfoundation.com/fundraiser-provokes-new-thinking-for-non-profit-industry/

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5717060/

https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2015/10/16/what-wasteful-practice-is-this-fundraising-consultant-so-ril.html

https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2015/10/14/struggling-with-controlling-donors-read-this-post.html

https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2016/10/10/why-is-this-new-organization-sparking-such-controversy-in-th.html

https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2015/10/13/meet-the-consultant-trying-to-start-a-fundraising-revolution.html

https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2015/10/15/radical-ideas-to-change-how-nonprofit-boards-operateand-supe.html

https://david-callahan-hfwl.squarespace.com/home/2015/10/15/radical-ideas-to-change-how-nonprofit-boards-operateand-supe.html

https://saadandshaw.com/radical-thoughts-on-nonprofit-boards/

https://mibiz.com/sections/nonprofits/nonprofit-execs-bristle-over-national-group%E2%80%99s-push-to-pay-board-members,-empower-ceos

https://ym.christianleadershipalliance.org/page/whatdonorswant

https://themichiganbanner.com/2017/08/12/fundraising-good-times-radical-thoughts-about-nonprofit-boards/

https://dinispheris.com/news-insights/dini-insights/feasibility-and-campaign-planning-studies-still-have-their-place/

https://nonprofitboardcrisis.typepad.com/mbblog/2019/05/paying-nonprofit-board-members-nonprofitboards.html

http://massnonprofitnet.org/blog/capital-campaign-planning-studies-aka-feasibility-studies-yay-or-nay/

http://events.r20.constantcontact.com/register/event?llr=qfnaqvbab&oeidk=a07e51c6eh2dba16484

http://mifuturolegal.com/immigration-reform-w-ricardo-inzunza-jimmy-larose-2-2/

https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2011-09-14/press-conference-matalon-business-center-announcing-the-formation-of-the-belizean-national-leadership-fund-september-14-2011

http://business.gulfbreezechamber.com/news/details/major-gifts-ramp-up-for-veterans-service-organizations-coming-to-gulf-breeze

http://www.vieravoice.com/November-2015/Firebrand-fundraiser-visits-the-Space-Coast/

https://www.ambergristoday.com/content/stories/2011/october/18/travel-spirit-television-filming-belize

https://www.dailymoss.com/jimmy-larose-author-and-fundraiser-challenges-donors-to-give-charities-what-they-really-need-their-minds-more-than-their-money/

Amanda.hogue (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Many of these links aren't from reliable sources and even fewer are significant coverage. Also, given the promotional nature of this article I ask that you disclose any WP:COI that you have with LaRose. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the update. What content on the page do you feel is promotional in nature? There are honestly more criticisms going against LaRose than promotional columns. Would it help to add more of those?

Here are the domains referencing Jimmy that I think is credible, do you not agree?

https://www.bloomberg.com/

https://www.guidestar.org/

https://www.philanthropy.com/

https://www.imdb.com/

https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/

I also updated my user page to disclose the COI.

Amanda.hogue (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for disclosing. Sites like IMDB and Bloomberg and Guidestar profiles do not count towards notability. Coverage must be from reliable sources and in-depth about the subject, not quotes as part of a larger context or passing mentions. Robert McClenon left several useful links about sources and what constitutes notability at Draft:James Paul LaRose. GPL93 (talk)


 * Comment - There is also a draft in draft space on the same subject by the same editor at Draft: James Paul LaRose. The future of the draft should depend on this deletion discussion of this article.  If this article is kept, the draft should be replaced by a redirect.  If this article is deleted, the draft should either be Rejected or also deleted.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks you for the feedback, the original draft was done in his real name, which is not known. I felt it is better to go by his common name. How do we go about setting up a redirect? Amanda.hogue (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - The submitter of this article is engaged in multiple forms of very unpleasant Wiki-conduct. The submitter submitted the draft without making the required declaration that they are being paid by an organization founded by the subject.  After that draft was declined for not having any properly formatted references, as are required for a biography of a living person, the submitter then both resubmitted the draft, still without labeling it as having a conflict of interest, and submitted an article with an alternate form of the name of the subject.  The submission of drafts or articles with multiple forms of the name of a person (or company) is a common form of gaming the system, and is disapproved of.  As the nominator of this article for deletion, User:GPL93, has noted, this is an attempt to bypass review.  After the article has been nominated for deletion, the submitter then provided a "URL dump", an unstructured list of sources that are said to mention the subject.  The message of a URL dump appears to be:  "Here.  I don't have time to work up a reasonable article.  I will leave it up to unpaid volunteers to do that dirty work.  But you have to do it, because I claim to have established notability."  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not trying to engage in unpleasant Wiki-conduct. This is my first attempt at publishing a Wikipedia article. It's a lot! I added the COI to my page as suggested by User:GPL93. I have no direct relation or interest in Jimmy LaRose. Nor am I getting paid directly by Jimmy LaRose for this submission. I was engaged by a 3rd party to write this article so that it would not have any conflicts of interest.   Amanda.hogue (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - Having reviewed the previous draft, the current draft, and the article, it appears to me that the question for the community is whether the subject is notable as an author on non-profit organizations having sometimes controversial views on how non-profit organizations should be managed. Entrepreneurs are run-of-the- mill, and claiming to be a motivational speaker is marketing buzzspeak.  The question is whether the submitter can provide three (not one, not twenty) sources indicating that the subject is notable as an author on non-profit organizations.  (My assumption is that they cannot, which is why they provided a URL dump.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with your view on being a motivational speaker. I removed mentioning of this on the article. As for sources indicated that he is a notable author on non-profit organizations, he does have credibility on a number of sites.

1. Amazon Lists his book as #404 out of over 3,000 books on Philanthropy & Charity : https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0692358013/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i0

2. He is listed on Good Reads for this particular topic: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35442150-re-imagining-philanthropy---second-edition

3. Listed as Top 100 Best Philanthropy books of all time: https://bookauthority.org/books/best-philanthropy-books

4. There are also numerous articles references him as an author:

This one in particular goes into great depth about the subject and controversial views that surround it:

https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Author-Says-Feasibility/228545

https://themichiganbanner.com/2017/08/12/fundraising-good-times-radical-thoughts-about-nonprofit-boards/

https://saadandshaw.com/radical-thoughts-on-nonprofit-boards/

https://whocarestv.com/about-jimmy/

https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Author-Says-Feasibility/228545

https://dinispheris.com/news-insights/dini-insights/feasibility-and-campaign-planning-studies-still-have-their-place/

https://valdostatoday.com/news-2/local/2014/08/scene-fall-forum-to-feature-larose/

Amanda.hogue (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Robert McClenon warned you about URL dumping and you respond by further URL dumping. I mean this is literally from the website of a private nonprofit consulting firm. Also being hired as a third party to write the article, which in your case is that you are being paid by a marketing firm who in turn has been paid by an organization LaRose co-founded, in no way lessens COI issues. Believe it or not I work in marketing/comms too so I know how that dynamic works as well. Even if you do add the controversy, the reason why LaRose and NANOE are paying for the page is to boost his profile, having an article on Wikipedia comes off as being important and that means something, especially in the field he is in. Finally, there just isn't enough significant coverage reliable sourcing to establish notability. I know it's hard as you're being paid to create the page, but you can't edit your way to being notable if you aren't actually notable by our standards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete and SALT with Extended-Confirmed Protection in both article space and draft space.
 * It is clear that the author does not plan to cooperate with volunteer editors in developing a neutral article. The subject may be notable as a non-profit executive, but developing a neutral biography will have to be done by a neutral experienced editor.
 * The submitter's interest may be indirect rather than direct, but is just as real as a direct interest. User:GPL93 was not "suggesting" that the submitter acknowledge their conflict of interest.  That isn't a suggestion any more than Exodus 20 has ten suggestions.
 * My own thought is that the agency that is being paid by NANOE, of which LaRose is an officer, isn't getting their money's worth from the submitter, but that is not my concern. (Perhaps NANOE would do better to pay someone who knows something about Wikipedia, but perhaps NANOE would do better to pay a web site developer.)
 * Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * As a web developer, that's harsh. I went through one last round and made the necessary changes suggested. This article is as unbiased as it gets and completely factual with credible sources. No links go to any promotional content. I went through every link and found the most credible sources. This author is notable enough. I strongly disagree that this article should be removed. Amanda.hogue (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Amanda.hogue - Let me explain my comment that NANOE might have done better to hire a web site developer. If you are a web developer, they would have done better to pay you to work on their web site.  Some companies try to use Wikipedia as a questionable means of advertising by employing paid editors, thinking that a Wikipedia article is a testimonial.  The actual benefit to a company of a Wikipedia article is debatable, since the company has no control over the article, which anyone can edit and which is the product of the community, not only of the paid editor.  On the other hand, a company that pays a web site developer to work on its own web site has full legal and editorial control over its web site.  My honest opinion is that I don't think that you are providing a service to NANOE that is worth what they are paying you.  If they were paying you for web development, they would probably be getting a better return on their investment.  I was being harsh about paid editors, not about web developers, who perform a legitimate professional service for their employer.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Robert McClenon Regardless of your opinion of how NANOE should spend their money, the fact of the matter is whether or not Jimmy is considered to have Notability based on the additional criteria for Authors.


 * 1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. - With over 30+ online articles quoting or referencing Jimmy LaRose directly, I think this constitutes as yes.


 * 2.The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. - In his book, Jimmy introduces a new theory & technique specific to non-profit management. He thinks that board members should indeed be incentivized monetarily to drive the success of a non-profit. This is a completely new way to view non-profits that no other known person has introduced before. It also creates controversy around how non-profits should be considered under a 501c status if they are internally incentivizing leadership with bonuses and increased pay. He is known for introducing this new theory, which is why he is cited, discussed and criticized by peers in the same field. So based on this criteria, this constitutes as yes.


 * 3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. - His book and upcoming documentary constitutes this as yes.


 * 4. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. - In the non-profit management world (although a very small world), his book and himself has gained significant critical attention. So this also constitutes as yes.


 * Amanda.hogue (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:GNG. Seems to me his nonprofit NANOE is more notable but still not enough for its own article. —МандичкаYO 😜 05:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per Nom. does not satisfy WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - I will respond to User:Amanda.hogue to say that she has done an excellent job of framing what the notability questions are that should be addressed about a two-part issue. The first part is what notability tests should be used for Jimmy LaRose.  The second is whether the current article satisfies those tests.  I agree that the four points that she has identified are the points that should be considered.  She has made a reasonable argument that a clean look needs to be taken at his notability, and I am striking my previous !vote.  However, we aren't considering whether to create an empty slot for an article on LaRose.  We are considering whether to Keep or Delete the current article.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt in draft space and article space with Extended-Confirmed protection. The author is only interested in providing neutral experienced editors with possible sources to work on an article, and hasn't actually written the article with the actual footnotes.  Maybe a neutral editor can use those sources to develop the article.  If not, not.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: User:Robert McClenon Proper footnotes & categories have been applied.Amanda.hogue (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - The footnotes provide verifiability for the draft in its current minimal form, which is now free of most of the promotional material, but is not enough to establish notability. Categories are not really relevant to a deletion discussion.  They are usually provided by volunteers who specialize in categories, a form of Wikignoming that is not always appreciated and should be appreciated, but is done after an article is in place.  The two URL dumps still appear to be a statement by a paid editor that she expects volunteer editors to improve the article to where it will pass AFD.  If a volunteer editor plans to do that within 24 hours, that will provide an article that establishes notability and should be kept.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - User:Robert McClenon Thanks for the response. There has been some edits made by volunteer editors prior to this comment. Another series of updates since your comment have been made that establishes unbiased notability. Feel free to review the content added. Based on the criteria on  Notability for Authors (as well as your own), this should pass AFD. Once again, thanks for all your input. Amanda.hogue (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2019 (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.