Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Baldoni (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Consensus is that the subject appears notable. The subject's (lack of) compliance with our COI policies is not a consideration for deletion, as long as the text is neutral, etc., which can be fixed through the editing process. Legoktm (talk) 03:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

John Baldoni
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I am puzzled by the outcome of the previous AFD as the notability of the subject doesn't seem to have been investigated properly. The main basis for keeping was that WP:AUTHOR was met due to his books being in many libraries, but that is not a valid criterion for passing. The only review of his work mentioned there was a 2009 review in Harvard Business Review. I have managed to track a copy down but it is a very brief review (around 200 words). Then there is this review in the pretty obscure but presumably reliable Graziadio Business Review. I have looked for more sources but have been unable to find anything that is inpedendent of the subject. If those are the only sources that exist, it does not appear to me as if either WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR are satisfied. SmartSE (talk) 11:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. — hueman1 ( talk  •  contributions ) 12:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. In searching my university libary there appears to be enough critical reviews of his books to pass WP:NAUTHOR. I added some reviews from peer reviewed journal articles and magazines to the article. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  12:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your careful consideration of my article. I respect Wikipedia and it is my go-to source for information which I often cite in my articles. I agree this forum should NOT be used for promotion.
 * My career as an author is well documented. I have published 15 books and another coming in April 2023
 * Additionally I have contributed over 900 articles to journals, including 200 to Harvard Business Review, the remainder to SmartBrief, FastCompany, Inc and most especially Forbes.com where I have been a contributor since 2013.
 * This is NOT self-promotion. A quick search on these platforms will reveal my library of contributions... Some 350 of I have gathered for students to use free at library.johnbaldoniblog.com as a resource for their studies and self-development. [Note: each of the articles/videos contain link to original publication.]
 * Again I appreciate the rigor Wikipedia exerts and hope that you will not delete my short bio.
 * Thank you. Jbaldoni1952 (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your careful consideration of my article. I respect Wikipedia and it is my go-to source for information which I often cite in my articles. I agree this forum should NOT be used for promotion.
 * My career as an author is well documented. I have published 15 books and another coming in April 2023
 * Additionally I have contributed over 900 articles to journals, including 200 to Harvard Business Review, the remainder to SmartBrief, FastCompany, Inc and most especially Forbes.com where I have been a contributor since 2013.
 * This is NOT self-promotion. A quick search on these platforms will reveal my library of contributions... Some 350 of I have gathered for students to use free at library.johnbaldoniblog.com as a resource for their studies and self-development. [Note: each of the articles/videos contain link to original publication.]
 * Again I appreciate the rigor Wikipedia exerts and hope that you will not delete my short bio.
 * Jbaldoni1952 (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep reviews in journals are ok for AUTHOR. Article really needs more details, but should pass GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep.  despite the participation by the subject.  DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comments: I have some serious issues with the subjects "participation" and the fact that there has been no COI notification. A "Jbaldoni1952" has made at least 13 edits, not all minor, and of 41 editors since the article was created it seems to have been deemed unimportant or missed. In this AFD, Jbaldoni52 has self-identified as the subject. As a note: the 1st nomination, likely a bad faith nomination, did mention possibly half the article was "purely self promotional and unsourced self-description". COI was mentioned "...the article does appear to have some COI issues (due to the edits from Jbaldoni52v) and needs some serious editing..." but no indication the subject was aware of this. That would be crying over spilled milk but a clear COI warning is surely needed.
 * Another concern is the statement by the subject "This is NOT self-promotion". Of course it is! Not wanting to impugn your integrity (Jbaldoni1952), but there is possibly a small amount of not being entirely honest as your participation, comments from other editors, and the SPA editing seems to show. At any rate, there is also several instances of clear single purpose account editing. The user name "Theprfreelancer" could be a big hint. User:Homermcness took some time of from that editors SPA with Marshall Goldsmith to create this article and make one other edit. These things are indicative of Self-promotion and possible marketing so please refrain from directly editing the article in the future. --  Otr500 (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2022 (UTC)     ‎
 * Thank you for pointing out my participation. My intention was mere correction or minor addition. If I crossed the line, then the error is mine. I apologize. I know you and the team will make the right decision for Wikipedia. Jbaldoni1952 (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You missed who was almost certainly employed to update the article this month, adding a photo and removing the maintenance tags.  I really don't understand why you have applied WP:NOTPROMO as a rationale for deletion in the (ongoing) Articles for deletion/Louis Barry Rosenberg (scientist) and yet do not feel it applies here. Would we have this article if it were not for the subject repeatedly paying to promote themselves here over an eleven year period? The answer is almost certainly no. SmartSE (talk) 09:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The text in this article is encyclopedic in tone and verifiable to the cited independent secondary references. There is no use of hyperbole here, and it just states the facts unless quoting a published independent review that gives an assessment. Promotion is not an issue in this article, and frankly the COI concerns here are minor as the text is non-problematic in relation to the sources which I have examined. The text in the Louis Barry Rosenberg article however, inflates the importance of the subject beyond what is in the sources and uses a non-encyclopedic tone to promote the subject. It needs a complete re-write to align with our policies.4meter4 (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comments: I must be missing something so I suppose I will just bow out as hypocrisy is a step down from hyperbole. To attempt to minimize paid editing that has not been disclosed, is against more than one policy and guideline, to include the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) policy. The behavioral guideline on Conflict of interest was actually as far as I got, having only glanced at the SPA contributions, but it did not require an extended investigation or even concerns of outing when a name such as Theprfreelancer is found. In my opinion, shared by not a few, paid and COI editing should in no way ever be considered "minor". I have concerns with the non-cholent attitude concerning something the community does not deem "minor".
 * @ Jbaldoni52, +223, +619, +111, and +706 edits would likely be considered more than a "mere correction or minor addition".
 * With all these participants, SPA's, PR freelance editors, and the subject, I have yet (maybe I missed it) to see any disclosures and it is not a stretch for someone to at least consider the possibility of "deceptive activities". See: Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and Conflict of interest. I am in the camp with "Readers expect to find neutral articles written independently of their subject, not corporate or personal webpages, or platforms for advertising and self-promotion. At some point I wonder why there has not been any warnings or reporting?
 * If I have missed an RFC (required by the WMF) to "revoke the disclosure provision" or a new RFC on COI editing please point this out. --  Otr500 (talk) 04:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.