Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Warrillow


 * 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. causa sui (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

John Warrillow

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No notability established. Further, the article creator is, possible CoI? Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Userfy rather than delete: As and per nom. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Avenue, if you want to userfy it and don't want to delete it, why send it to Articles for Deletion? Ironholds (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the unsolicited advice. Nevertheless, I was confused (rather, I thought about moving it to User: namespace first) whether the article should be deleted as promotional (like one I nominated at AfD was/is about to be) or userfied. Thus, I posted (rather, voted) my opinion. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It wasn't advice, it was a statement; AfD is for deletions. If the nominator is unsure, the nominator should not nominate it. Ironholds (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I clearly know what AfD means (for the matter of the fact, vandalism too), and posted it at AfD becuase the article was unencyclopaedic. I thought about userfying the article, but figured that few extra opinions would help. Thus, I brought the article at AfD because it was unencyclopaedic, and suggested userfication. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You're not understanding your role. An article should be nominated for deletion if the nominator feels it should be deleted. A nominator does not get to comment "delete" or, for that matter, "userfy rather than delete"; the very fact that the article has been nominated is taken to indicate that the nominator feels deletion is the only option. If there are other options, don't nominate it. Ironholds (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think both of you are partially right. Looong story short... Avenue X can suggest to userfy as this is deleting the article from main space.  Userfication is a very grey area, with no AfU and can get messy (remember long story short).  However, Avenue should have suggested it in their nomination as a possibility and not after.  As Ironholds said, "A nominator does not get to comment 'delete'".  It looks like two "votes" to delete.  Ironholds, do you know of where it says not to do this practice?  I commented the same thing to a nominator on their talk page and got a nasty reply back ("I'm an admin" and "you are nothing") that they will continue to do the practice. Bgwhite (talk) 07:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:AFD makes clear that "Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted" (not, crucially, userfied, or moved, or anything else) while the userfication essay (I know, only an essay) does not give AfD as an appropriate venue. Which admin was this? I'm tempted to give him a trouting. Ironholds (talk) 08:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll respond at your talk page so as not to completely threadjack this AfD. Bgwhite (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The article was not created by John Warrillow himself, it was created by someone who works for his company in a non-biased role. John Warrillow is a published author and speaker and is a notable individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.warrillow (talk • contribs) 17:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, do NOT userfy. Spam in article space is a bad thing, spam in user space is arguably even worse as it can go undiscovered for months or even years before anyone deletes it.  Userfying is NOT acceptable for this sort of material. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a notable person. Email a copy to the author on request.— S Marshall  T/C 23:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. As written, the article is "spam" and the editor has a clear conflict of interest. So, I wouldn't userfy as the article needs to be blown up and re-written from scratch.  There are clearly Google hits on the articles he has written.  There is also not enough significant, independent coverage about him.  I personally have trouble with this type of person's nobility as I can see why someone would want to write an article and also say keep.  In the end, I don't think he yet pass WP:GNG, but if he keeps going at the same pace, he will end up with an article.  Bgwhite (talk) 06:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - A published author, his book Built to Sell: Creating a Business That Can Thrive Without You is published by Portfolio Hardcover and has ISBN 1591843979. The individual also writes a regular column for Inc. Magazine. and other publications. Rather than deleting, the article should be rewritten to a neutral point of view, to minimize it reading like a press release.Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Another idea is to move data from the article into an article about his book, Built To Sell: Creating a Business That Can Thrive Without You, which may be more noteworthy than an article about the author.Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - This seemed like a typical spammy businessman page, started by an underling for the greater glorification of The Boss. Taking a peak at Google for the exact (unusual) name of the author churned up 44,000+ hits, however, including THIS INTERVIEW ON THE FORBES SITE interviewing Warrillow as an expert in the field of creating and turning over startup companies. The jury's still out for me... Carrite (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitely a columnist for Inc., which is a mass circulation magazine. A DECENT SIZED PILE of articles by him. Writers don't get the same free pass as actors at WP, but this status is worthy of note, if not notable. Carrite (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * BIG REVIEW of one of Warrillow's works in the New York Journal of books. Carrite (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a blog, but "John Warrillow — The Glenn Beck of Canadian Business?" is a great title, is it not??? Indicative to me that this is a fellow with public figure status, even though I'd never heard of him before. Carrite (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Now here's the website of the New York Times CITING WARRILLOW AS A SMALL BUSINESS EXPERT. It's starting to look like to me that this is a recognized expert in his field... Carrite (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The New York Enterprise Report FELT WARRILLOW WAS A WORTHY INTERVIEW SUBJECT. Carrite (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And here's a HUFFINGTON POST PIECE on Warrillow's ideas. Carrite (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - I've seen enough. Keep as a recognized expert in the field of small business, a national columnist, and author of business books who is the subject of multiple, substantial, independent pieces of published coverage by such heavy hitters as the new media arms of the New York Times and Forbes. Passes General Notability Guideline, quite handily. An article being bad is not sufficient reason for deletion; correctable through the normal editing process. Carrite (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – The topic passes notability guidelines per several additional reliable sources that were found listed above this message by user Carrite. Per the section 'Basic criteria' within 'Wikipedia: Notability (people)' (WP:BIO), “A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.” "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.” The individual passes WP:BIO due to the available multiple independent sources which demonstrate notability and in the manner of which those sources are not comprised of trivial coverage. Northamerica1000 (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 13:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG, the independence criteria just aren't there. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: I'm not nearly as sanguine about Carrite's sources as he is. First off, several of them are blog posts, not articles.  More than one contains some of the same language ("He has started and exited four companies. Most recently he transformed Warrillow & Co. from a boutique consultancy into a recurring revenue model subscription business ...") which suggest the cold hand of publicists dishing out press releases.  Another is a broken link, and another discusses a book by Warrillow, not Warrillow himself.  What I am not seeing are solid sources which discuss the subject in "significant detail."  Ravenswing  10:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article does not meet our notability requirements. It doesn't meet WP:GNG, as none of the references included in the article have significant coverage of him, and I couldn't locate reliable and independent references that could. Sure, I found some blog posts, but that just doesn't cut it. He also fails WP:AUTHOR. Some people may claim that he is an important person in his field, but I'd say that there just isn't sufficient evidence to prove that.--Slon02 (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2011 (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.