Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Elledge


 * 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. Yunshui 雲 水 11:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Josh Elledge

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject fails WP:ANYBIO. There are a lot of references but they are about his business, him giving advice, brief mentions, or unreliable. The only reference that focuses on him is a Forbes article but that was written by a contributor with no editorial oversite. CNMall41 (talk) 05:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. This looks very much like PR, it's almost a G11. Guy (help!) 14:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep it reaches notability for WP:AUTHOR as "1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." The citations clearly show that Elledge is widely regarded as important in both the brand/reputation management and podcasting spaces. --tbc32 (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * He is widely regarded as important by his PR, but the evidence for anyone else agreeing is strictly limited. Guy (help!) 12:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So I'm not quite sure what you mean "by his PR"? Is that because some of the claims (e.g. 2,000 media appearances, syndicated column) show up on his own site?  I think part of my struggle to show notability and validity may be tied to the issue of podcasting being a legitimate news-sharing medium. For example, I cite an interview with John Lee Dumas on a few of the points made in the article.  Dumas is one of the leading podcasters in the world so I viewed his interview as a significant one in lending credibility to Elledge's accomplishments.  But if podcasts aren't viewed as legitimate sources for information than about half the articles I use wouldn't be valid (of course the other half are from other reputable online sources).  Any advice for me here? I have this same issue on other articles I've written about influential public speakers, so I'd like to know how to better establish credibility of those who make their living through audio, not written word.tbc32 (Deletion discussion about Josh Elledge) 06:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Which references show that he is regarded as an important figure? If you are saying that he is because he appears in references, then that is original research or an assumption which is subjective. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Jaime Tardy, Michael Stelzner, and John Lee Dumas (three of the interviews cited in the article) are three of the biggest names in brand management and podcasting. All three brought Elledge onto their show as a "guest expert" on brand building and getting press. Maybe you can help me with this... one of the struggles I'm finding in establishing both notability and credibility for this article stem from the sources being podcast interviews. Podcast transcripts do a much better job of showing how Elledge is an important figure in this space than the shownotes that are usually published online (most transcripts aren't published).  Is there a way of using/citing audio content instead of relying on shownotes? --tbc32 (talk) 07:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A few comments. First, saying these three people are the "biggest names in brand management and podcasting" is subjective (and inaccurate). I am sure people like Gary Vee would disagree (as do I). Also, what you are saying in your argument boils down to WP:OR. Because they brought him in for an interview does not mean he is highly regarded. We need a reference that says exactly that - that he is highly regarded - otherwise we are creating new statements based on our opinions. Finally, you state that "one of the struggles [you're] finding in establishing both notability and credibility for this article stem from the sources being podcast interviews." That is exactly the issue. Wikipedia relies on reliable secondary sources which there are few of that talk about the subject in enough detail to amount to WP:SIGCOV. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - promotional intent could not be more blatant. Notability is therefore irrelevant. Deb (talk) 08:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Deb, can you please clarify what you mean by that? What makes the article promotional?  I genuinely want to know, I wrote the article and tried to make it as objective as I could.  tbc32 (talk) 07:24, 18 September 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.