Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter A. Georgescu


 * 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. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 11:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Peter A. Georgescu

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The lack of independent sources is glaring. We have the guy's author profile on the Huffington Post. We have this piece of cruft - I'm not quite sure what a blank page is supposed to attest. We have an Amazon sale page for his book - available used for $0.01! We've got the article that gave him his fifteen minutes of fame - well, it's no J'accuse…! We have the follow-up article in which he responds to reader comments. And of course there's the lecture announcement, posted by the venue paying the subject to deliver the lecture.

Needless to say, none of these sources (aside from, I suppose, the cruft one) is independent. And we do need independent sources if we're going to have an article - specifically, "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". The article creator claims the subject is notable for two reasons. The first: "he was the chairman of one of the largest advertising firms in the world". Sorry, but being the CEO of Young & Rubicam doesn't automatically make you notable. You do still need some kind of independent coverage. The second: "he has authored two books". Again, authoring two or twenty or two thousand books isn't what counts: it's satisfying the criteria laid down by WP:BASIC, something that plainly has failed to happen. - Biruitorul Talk 14:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Strong Keep - The New York Times is not  a credible source? the advertising hall of fame? Two articles in the times one of which caused a big stir in the income inequality debate the chairman of Young and Rubicam his financial interests in other companies and boards I did not put every link up of course this a rush to judgement it is ridiculous the back story just on how he came to the United States is tremendous .. He has delivered important university lectures at many institutions. I guess I should have gotten it all up before I posted it as some people here live to delete and yes to me underlying this rush to delete something smells of political reasons you will see now that you have forced me to stop to in my tracks and do more work immediately that it is reminiscent of the Kordas. You are one in a long series of editors who try to make an anonymous sway for themselves by proposing deletions. Masterknighted (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Is Stanford enough for you retract this inappropriate nomination for deletion nowMasterknighted (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The point is not that The New York Times isn't credible, it's that two articles by Peter Georgescu cannot be used as evidence that Peter Georgescu is notable. You can't get much less independent than that.
 * Please come up with independent sources - i.e., not their own website, or his website - that comment on Georgescu's membership in the advertising hall of fame.
 * Please show secondary sources regarding this "big stir in the income inequality debate".
 * As I said, heading Young & Rubicam, or having financial interests, or delivering lectures, or even having an interesting story about how one emigrated - none of these is sufficient in itself for notability; independent sources are needed.
 * No, a glowing puff piece, essentially a press release for his book (now ranked 458,459 by Amazon), in the Stanford Business School's alumni magazine about a man who earned an MBA from - you guessed it - Stanford Business School is not really independent coverage, either.
 * But of course I have political reasons! When I say I'd like this deleted for lack of independent sources and patently failing WP:BASIC, what I really mean is that, as an unreconstructed Stalinist, I wish this bourgeois enemy of the people had remained in the Gulag and perished there as fast as possible, and since that didn't happen, my second best option is to try to consign him to a damnatio memoriae and make sure as few people as possible learn about this perfidious obstacle in the way of the glorious classless society of which I dream. You got me!
 * And no, I'm not going to withdraw this perfectly appropriate nomination - unless there's unanimous support for keeping it, it's going to run for about a week, I will try my best to ensure the article is deleted, and you will just have to deal with that. - Biruitorul Talk 16:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment. - All of this already qualifies him as notable second he was part of a famous case involving the trading of spies. This is absolutely ludicrous the response the article in the New York Times solicited and the position he took in the income inequality debate originating  from someone inside the Capitalist structure alone qualifies him .. Honestly I can see no other reason you would argue with the skill of a trial attorney that he is not notable when he clearly is and break it down as such is that you do not like him for some political reason and second read the second NYT article is not by Georgescu it is an interview a q&a which the Times felt was a necessary follow up after the huge (in the words of Trump, Sanders and David) response to his opinion piece.Masterknighted (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment' - And I suppose the Department of State does not qualify either https://books.google.com/books?id=n4lNAQAAMAAJ&q=peter+georgescu+eisenhower&dq=peter+georgescu+eisenhower&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiI5J-F3qLMAhXFGT4KHStgCoIQ6AEIIzABMasterknighted (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Doing remarkable things isn't enough; they key is "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject".
 * Actually, yes, the second Times article is also by him. As it says, "Here, Mr. Georgescu addresses a few [reader] comments".
 * No, a brief press release from the State Department is probably not significant and independent coverage, particularly given how cases such as his were seen by the US government as victories (albeit minor ones) in the Cold War. Even a mention in an independent source - say, a newspaper - would probably best fit in at Romania–United States relations.
 * Anyway, I think we've both made our positions clear; let's see what others have to say. But impugning my motives isn't going to get you very far - I have good policy-based reasons for wanting this deleted, nothing more. - Biruitorul Talk 17:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment' - https://books.google.com/books?id=0OjtAAAAMAAJ&q=peter+georgescu+eisenhower&dq=peter+georgescu+eisenhower&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWgNyu4qLMAhXFeD4KHUF8A28Q6AEILTADhttps://books.google.com/books?id=0OjtAAAAMAAJ&q=peter+georgescu+eisenhower&dq=peter+georgescu+eisenhower&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWgNyu4qLMAhXFeD4KHUF8A28Q6AEILTAD The Ecomomist take that Spock beat Damnatio Memoraie even Caligula did whack!!!! Masterknighted (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment - And this adweek article should validate his time at the helm of Young & Rubicam http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising/young-rubicam-market-makers-how-peter-georgescu-and-his-team-turned-adlands-most-pr. Masterknighted (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep and rename to Peter Georgescu. Given the vast amount of verifiable, independent coverage in newspapers and books, I do not see how one can claim that this advertising hall of fame executive is NN. Now, surely he wasn't nominated for political reasons, but perhaps the source of the error (hence my speedy!) is that the nominator looked only for Peter A. Georgescu? There is much more coverage under his common name, hence I propose to (speedy) keep and rename. gidonb (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - About half the articles are peter and half Peter A., but I believe all of the internal links are Peter A. Masterknighted (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * From my count, the majority of the sources and the more independent source indicate that Peter Georgescu should be the name. After your recent improvements, anyone can now see this in the reflist! gidonb (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Here is the story plainly spelled out for you to see in the Father's New York Times obituary and i have not cited his own website, http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/04/obituaries/valeriu-georgescu-oil-executive-dies-consultant-was-89.htmlMasterknighted (talk) 02:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)



 References
 * Keep and copy edit – The subject passes WP:BASIC. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. Note that the sources provided below are directly about the subject, rather than written by him. See also WP:NEXIST. North America1000 17:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Palm Beach Daily News
 * Out Think: How Innovative Leaders Drive Exceptional Outcomes. John Wiley & Sons. pages pt27–28.
 * Adweek
 * Salon
 * The Economist,
 * AlterNet
 * ZF Business International (scroll down)
 * The New York Times (opinion pages)


 * Keep. The multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing the subject in detail required by WP:GNG unquestionably exist.  The Palm Beach Daily News, Adweek and Salon sources fully establish notability; I had no need to read further.  We often accept far less.  Msnicki (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I have not seen one person who agrees that deleting this article is a good idea. I suggest closing this nomination under snowball keep as is it is absolutely baseless under our policies and guidelines. It is also unfortunately worded as the fact that you can buy this person's book for 1 cent at Amazon is totally irrelevant and can serve no purpose than to denigrate the subject of the article. Why irrelevant? You can get tons of fine and important books for 1 cent at Amazon including, for example, Hamlet by William Shakespeare! Is either that book or author unimportant? gidonb (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not even the only wrong use of language in the nomination. Just an example. This unpleasant tone managed, in turn, to annoy the creator, which only shows that one needs to think twice about wording. There are always consequences. Let's just close this discussion! I can't do it because I casted a vote and was very much part of the discussion. gidonb (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Weak keep but article needs to reflect his business notability. I'm l Looking at him as AUTHOR and he does not meet that criterion. He has one book in >800 libraries, and one in ~50. I found no substantial reviews of either, and Publisher's Weekly has a rather unenthusiastic paragraph on his autobiography (which is what the second book is). Like nom, I was unable to find significant third-party articles. He is listed in the American Advertising Hall of Fame here. That's a link that could be added to the article. There are folks who consider CEO of a large company sufficient for notability. I prefer to hold out for a true GNG based on sources. LaMona (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The subject is covered in many reliable sources as a businessperson, and passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. For starters, WP:GNG is a stronger guideline compared to WP:NAUTHOR, which is essentially a secondary notability guideline. It's inherently unfair and unbalanced to judge notability upon a very specific notability criteria when the subject passes more basic ones. North America1000 18:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * LaMonauh, Peter Georgescu passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC with flying colors. WP:NAUTHOR would be relevant for essentially an author who has also done some business (e.g., Janwillem van de Wetering), not for essentially an executive who has also written some books. How do we know he is foremost an executive? Because this is the field where has had most coverage and is included in a hall of fame. gidonb (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , it would be helpful if you could say exactly which sources you consider to meet GNG. I see writings BY him; two pages in the Hunter book (anecdotal); a significant article in AdWeek (RS); responses to something he wrote in NYT (not about him); a summary of a talk he gave in Palm Beach Daily News (not a strong sourceC); one name check in a Dept of State book; a one-page article in the Economist of 1999 (RS) which I can't see. So by my calculations, with these new sources he squeaks by GNG. However, the article needs them added, and his own writings should not be used as references. In fact, his own writings, since you agree that he is not notable as an author, should be be given undue weight in the article.LaMona (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - I added the Business Hall of Fame link thank you... However as far as coverage of his books go did you overlook this link to NPR and the Leonard Lopate Show ? Then in the meantime there are many links up now and in the body of the content all of the stuff is laid out; business, author, education, notoriety etceteras http://www.wnyc.org/story/265050-peter-georgescu-good-and-evil/  LaMona Masterknighted (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * {{u|Masterknighted]], interviews are primary sources as per Interviews. They don't hurt, but it's not obvious how this one fits into notability. From what I can understand, it is him talking about his autobiography -- thus, in a sense, making a double primary source: him talking about him talking about himself. I do think that more of the primary sources should be removed from the article. I may get around to that. LaMona (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Au Contraire- The NPR interview shows that a major independent news source feels that the book is significant enough to give it serious time and coverageMasterknighted (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Au contraire, contraire. Unless the interviewer offered his own thoughts or analysis, the interview is primary.  Your argument is no different and no more correct than claiming that if the NYT published his opinion piece, they must have thought he was notable else they wouldn't have published it.  It simply doesn't work that way.  Here at WP, we required that notability be demonstrated by sources not connected to the subject.  Interviews simply do not qualify.  That said, as I noted above, there are plenty of actual secondary sources demonstrating notability.  Msnicki (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}
 * Ok - Thank you and I am going to listen and see if Lopate offered his own thoughts or analysis Masterknighted (talk) 02:58, 1 May 2016 (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.