Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Feldman (consultant)


 * 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   no consensus.  Sandstein  10:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Michael Feldman (consultant)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Despite having 12 well-formatted sources, I have not found any that are actually acceptable/verify notability. Citations used are a mix of press release, brief mentions, interviews, quotes, award sites and other low-quality sources that create the appearance of it having strong sources, whereas it doesn't actually. Part of a much-needed cleanup of category:American public relations people. CorporateM (Talk) 03:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment—As the creator of this article it may or may not go without saying that I believe it should be kept. Feldman is a co-founder of the DC-based communications firm Glover Park Group, and is also known for being one of a few close aides to Vice President Al Gore who persuaded him to seek a recount in the 2000 presidential election. He hasn't sought much attention for himself, but it has still found him; needless to say, I disagree with the nominator's summary of the sources. Rather than placing this article in the mainspace itself, I took my proposed draft to WikiProject Cooperation for consideration, where it was approved and moved into mainspace by User:Silver seren (whom it appears was not notified of this AfD). Since the article's creation, Feldman has married Today Show co-host Savannah Guthrie, generating several news stories based on the premise that Guthrie's husband is, well, notable—in the Washington Post and NY Daily News, among others. Another recent article by The Hollywood Reporter has called him "Hollywood's D.C. Spin Doctor". I respectfully suggest this nomination be withdrawn.
 * Disclosure number one: I initiated the creation of this article as a consultant on behalf of Feldman's firm. Disclosure number two: the nominator is also a consultant to firms seeking to work with Wikipedia, a fact I believe he should have disclosed as well. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 04:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. A vanity article that has been paid for to appear on Wikipedia. Scraped-up poor sourcing and overall WP:GNG failure. The sort of thing which (rightly) gives Wikipedia a bad name. Alexbrn talk 19:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. The sourcing was fine before and can be better now. Simply asserting it fails WP:GNG does not make it so. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 21:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We need "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" not (as the nom rightly puts it) the "mix of press release, brief mentions, interviews, quotes, award sites and other low-quality sources" that have been eked out in an attempt to make something of this topic. Alexbrn talk 21:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Naturally, all of the phrases in the WP:GNG are open to interpretation—it wouldn't be Wikipedia otherwise. However, let's take a look at the claim to notability and sum of coverage, including sources in the current entry and some not included now:


 * Claim to notability—Mr. Feldman is the co-founder and managing director of a national PR firm recently acquired by WPP group, and known for consulting on political topics for Hollywood. He was a high-ranking White House aide who played a role in persuading Vice President Al Gore to seek a recount in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, and he is married to a current co-host of the Today Show. This is hardly the profile of a non-notable figure to which the term "vanity article" usually applies. Instead, it easily meets the "worthy of notice" standard of WP:BIO.


 * Sources and GNG—Indeed there are some press releases and official pages used to verify some information that cannot be found elsewhere—a legitimate use following WP:PRIMARY that such sources are appropriate if used to verify "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts". They are not intended to demonstrate notability.


 * Meanwhile, Feldman's involvement in the recount has appeared in mainstream newspapers such as The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times. And while not presently included in the article, Feldman's significant role in the Gore-Lieberman campaign was covered extensively by Dana Milbank in his book Smash Mouth.


 * In case The Hollywood Reporter story (linked above but not included in the current article) is being dismissed as an "interview", it is clearly a profile including a Q&A.


 * Meanwhile, the Washington Post coverage of his engagement is brief, and the New York Daily News coverage of his wedding is sensational, but that's entertainment news on the web for you, and it is staff-generated content from undoubtedly WP:RELIABLE sources.


 * The fact that I was compensated for writing and seeking placement for this article's inclusion is notably absent from WP:DELETE's list of acceptable reasons for deletion and should not be a factor one way or another. However, I must stress again that I did not place the article into mainspace myself; this was a decision made by an independent editor.


 * Given the above, I think Feldman's notability is clear and again I request this AFD be withdrawn. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 18:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 08:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per WP:BARE. I'd like to see more sources added to the article, but even now it appears that this person is notable for his work on Gore's presidential campaign. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: as a puff piece created by a paid editor.  Alexbrn said it well above.  Paid editor grasping at straws above to save article (using an engagement announcement to support notability? really??).   I wonder if the paid editor has to refund the fees if the article is deleted.  Hmm..  The Dissident Aggressor 20:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * DissidentAggressor, which of the traditional WP:DELs do you consider applicable to this article? As far as I can tell, your argument is simply that you WP:DONTLIKE it. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 21:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said, Alexbrn said it well: No GNG. The Dissident Aggressor 22:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 14:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - People seem obsessed with the whole paid thing and seemingly ignoring everything else because of that. I'll note, one of the delete votes, who won't give a decent reason why it is under WP:GNG, has filled his userpage with a essay on paid contributors. I don't personally agree with paid editing but - the article is more neutral than many unpaid things I've read on Wiki and the creator actually got it approved by an independent editor first. It's also rich given the AfD nominator is a paid editor as well. In addition, WP:BEFORE applies. A quick google found extensive coverage of him, such as profiles because of the marriage in places like E! Online and the Daily Mail, which like it or not do have huge readership. Now, if we go back to before his marriage was all the news could talk about, I found things like this profile in Hollywood Reporter. All together, definitely keep.  JT dale Talk ~ 03:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: non-notable lower-echelon political operative segues into PR and pays for an article? It's still here?--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 08:55, 2 January 2015 (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.