Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Shapero (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   no consensus. Closing no consensus rather than keep because of sourcing doubts. There's obviously no consensus for deletion, but little in-depth coverage of him individually. However, it seems there is significant consensus that his book is notable, and it has been suggested that this article be rewritten and retitled accordingly. That matter can be taken up on the article talk page. Shimeru (talk) 08:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Rich Shapero
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Nominating per Deletion review/Log/2010 May 15, which closed as overturn and relist. Procedural nomination, I am neutral. Tim Song (talk) 04:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — Jujutacular  T · C 04:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  — Jujutacular  T · C 04:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Note from closer of previous AFD: The original AFD was unusual in that the debate focused on the right issue but participants didn't carefully check the various claims. Below I sum up the evidence and policy-based matters from that AFD, hopefully to help inform a better debate this time around and to focus the community's discussion.

Google News has almost no significant coverage of the man himself (as a subject and individual). He is quoted a number of times as "a Venture Capitalist" giving a view on the market to the media, such as in this article, but the news article isn't about him or covering him, it just uses him as a source, a spokesperson, or quotes him. In such citations, the news media is unlikely to have discriminated in choosing him (many other people would probably have done just as well). Such mentions are indiscriminate and don't add evidence of notability (WP:NOT, WP:N). Excluding the most obvious spokesmanship cuts the Google news hit count down to just 17 items of which some are coverage of a lawyer of the same name and most of the rest are "speaking as a venture capitalist" again.
 * Sources in Google news

In sum, Google News has a hit-count, but does not actually show any significant coverage of Rich Shapero himself. It contains two minor "transient" hits about the book launch.

Google web search's results speak for themselves too. There are almost no clear sources that are not related to his book "Wild Animus", and such mentions as the book does get are mostly on sites like Amazon and self-pub or non-reliable sources. Here too there are no clear signs of significant independent coverage focused on the man himself.
 * Google web search

The sources cited in past debates and the article itself (during AFD/DRV) are: - his page on his employers website, brief coverage related to his book launch , and in student publications.
 * Possible sources mentioned in the article, AFD and DRV

These are similar - a corporate press statement where he acted as company spokesperson, a very tangential mention in a legal dispute ("Shapero, a X% stockholder in company Y") , another spokesperson snip where the sole mention is that as a director of a (non-controversial) failed company, Shapero did not return the newspaper's phone call , a note that he is a board member of company Z , a brief article noting his book will be given away, with no coverage of the man himself , and one reliable source related to the event of his book launch.
 * Extra cites mentioned and added by User:Silver seren today

We don't have reliable sources of the kind needed. Most hits are mere mentions, or otherwise cannot speak to notability. Cites shown in the article include his employers page, student publications, recently bolstered by extra links of which all but one are "mere mentions" again. The only mainstream coverage that is useful evidence at AFD, is 2 brief mentions on a transient event, his book release.
 * Conclusion

This is a BLP of a businessman, also the self-pub author of a book. There is little or no evidence of notability. Online hits for "Rich" or "Richard" Shapero include Google and Google News, but a closer examination shows that most of these are in the role of spokesman for his employer company and/or in connection with a single event, his book launch. There are also BLP problems.

In summary the evidence from all sources posted on-wiki (article/AFD/DRV) are one employers' page, 3 student publications and a small number of mainstream "brief/transient coverage" mentions connected to his self-pub book launch and a university scare (that clearly fails WP:EVENT).
 * Summary of evidence

The article currently fails the notability guideline for people (best summed up in a footnote from that guideline - "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it").
 * Notability guideline for biographies

In addition to the problems of notability or evidence of significant coverage, there is also a WP:BLP issue. Articles - especially BLPs - require sufficient and appropriate quality sources to work from. BLPs in particular require high quality coverage of the subject in reliable independent sources for an article. None has been proposed. BLP is an overriding policy.
 * BLP issues

Multiple users also give as a rationale for "keep" that he was "notorious", a claim that tends to suggest he would be widely seen in a negative light and that is the basis of notability. Such articles must have sufficient high quality sources from reputable media to avoid "poorly sourced negative BLP" issues. But none have been presented.

As well as Rich Shapero himself, I also considered 2 other possible claims or issues: Neither seem to be a good source of notability for articles, whether on the man or the events.
 * Other possible bases for notability
 * 1) His book release, or its promotion. This seems to be a self pub venture that got some coverage but insufficient evidence was posted to meet WP:EVENT or GNG, or to merit an article on it. (Wild animus book launch promotion controversy?)
 * 2) A very minor bomb scare when a box of books was mistaken as a possible bomb.

(There is also no obvious viable merge or redirect option - discussed at DRV).

There seems to be no basis in evidence so far of notability of the man, or his book, or his book's launch, or his book as a bestseller redirect. BLPs also default to delete in certain cases, of which serious sourcing problems are one.
 * Conclusion

Given existing poor evidence of notability, sourcing, and the additional BLP concerns taken into account, this article probably needs to be deleted for now (without prejudice to recreation if sourced in future). FT2 (Talk 05:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

FT2 (Talk 05:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I've gone and added several more references. With those, I feel that he, rather easily, meets the notability guideline. Silver  seren C 05:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Silver. I've included comment on these in the evidence below for completeness. However almost all are "mere mentions" and don't speak at all to notability. A BLP needs reliable sources (and not just college student newspapers!) that directly address the subject. We still lack evidence that Shapero himself has been the subject of significant coverage of a non-indiscriminate nature. For BLPs we usually want more than that: multiple high quality sources focusing on the subject. FT2 (Talk 06:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this and this the same guy as this article? And this seems like it could have some good information. Silver  seren C 06:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Same subject, same issues. Take a look at the cites. The first is a soundbite, and a brief tech press release on a new networking product, as spokesperson. It doesn't in any way speak of him or his notability. If he had been sick that day or fallen under a tram any other director could have given that press release and soundbite for the company and nobody would have minded. The second is exactly the same with the same issues. The third may or may not be useful, but all we have is a tiny mention that's otherwise not checked.


 * Google hits and links need to be individually checked to ensure they do actually evidence notability. "[W]hether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it " (WP:BASIC, WP:N). FT2 (Talk 07:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 *  Note - due to nature of this AFD, I've moved this from elsewhere to keep the discussion views together, making it easy for participants to follow the debate. If this is felt to prejudice it in any way please feel free to reverse. No textual changes made. FT2 (Talk 02:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I still think the coverage can be considered significant (and now we have even more coverage such as the San Jose Mercury News article and the article about his promotion in Australia), and thus fulfills our need for both verifiability and notability. I respect the opinion of FT2 but think he misuses WP:EVENT, there has never been a policy or guideline that has claimed that every single event in an article most be notable (but they must of course be verifiable), only the main subject (WP:NNC). I also don't see any BLP issue here, there is not even a single potentially negative statement in the article that is not very well sourced. And consider the common sense approach: People across the world (I got a CD in Sweden, some guy at the talk-page got the book in England and the US and Australia are also getting their share of promotion) are coming to wikipedia to look this guy up, so if we can provide a short but really well-sourced article on the guy, then why shouldn't we? Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This gives significant coverage for a start, and this isn't far behind. Together with ten other mentions, many of which include quotes of his statements, I feel there is enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. BLP appears not to be an issue as all information is neutral and sourced, and WP:EVENT is largely bypassed by the large number of sources mentioning his former career as a venture capitalist. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Both of the above editors commented - inaccurately - at the original AFD. A quick recap of the errors:


 * @Pax:Vobiscum -
 * We need significant (or substantial) coverage of the subject himself, to a high quality, to write a BLP.
 * We have a San Jose Mercury News article, but it's primarily on a single event - his book release. Do we have a San Jose Mercury News article (or any other high quality source) on Rich Shapero himself? Not at the moment.
 * Do we have any evidence yet that any mainstream reputable reliable source has taken notice of Rich Shapero and written about the man himself per WP:N or WP:BIO? No.
 * Do we have AFD claims that any attention is based on "notoriety" or "negative" press? Yes, two of them.
 * Do we have sufficient (or indeed any) high quality sources to write a high quality BLP-compliant biography? Not at the moment.
 * Does "people might want to look it up" carry weight at AFD? Not usually.
 * Notability of the person (a biographical article) and notability of the book release/promotion (a news event) are both possible approaches. WP:EVENT applies to the latter as to any event. Unfortunately and in the gentlest way, your post doesn't speak to the required actual evidence.
 * Regarding the coverage (From WP:GNG): "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." I plainly disagree that all this coverage shouldn't be considered significant. Regarding the BLP "issue": please indicate what material in the actual article is negative and not properly sourced. Further, the interest of the readers is the main reason why we have WP:INDISCRIMINATE and the notability guidelines, so my point still stands: we have an article, fully referenced, that people want to read. In what way is wikipedia improved by its deletion? Cheers/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * @Alzarian16 -
 * Same applies. The two sources you cite are indeed reliably published and high quality - but they are media coverage of the book release event, and only very tangentially coverage of Shapero as a person. If we had media articles of this level of sourcing on Rich Shapero himself, there wouldn't be a problem. If the book release and its promotion was evidenced as meeting WP:EVENT we could perhaps (subject to BLP issues) have an article on that instead. Again in the gentlest way, so far we have none of these evidenced whatsoever. If you can find any high quality evidence for either of these, then please post it below.


 * FT2 (Talk 14:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. You have a point regarding the second of the two sources I cited, However, I count over 400 words about the man himself in the first - his past life, a short biography, his achievements, the genesis of the book and his future plans are all covered. For me that's significant coverage, and by some margin too. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * keep the sources do seem somewhat weak, but there is enough to build an article seems to cover him in detail,  also has a nice context for him.  seems non-trivial.  Yes, this is largely related to his book release, but the other mentions in other contexts (as a VC) are enough for me. Hobit (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There don't seem to be any significant mentions or substantial coverage of him, other than in connection with the book release. There's no article on him as a VC or businessman. Nobody has "actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon the subject " (WP:N, WP:BIO, emphasis added). A general wave of the hand to say there are a few sources on the book release (which got a minor amount of attention) and "other mentions in a VC context" isn't enough for notability. There is no evidence of him being considered notable as a VC. The usual indiscriminate soundbites and spokesman bits for his a director of a company. This view tries to make a case based on a small number of indiscriminate mentions as a company spokesperson that do not and cannot actually evidence "the world taking attention" of the subject.


 * Has anyone found good quality (non-student, non-book launch, non-spokesperson/non-indiscriminate, reputable) sources that focus on Shapero specifically and give him non-trivial attention, to show that Rich Shapero has had attention taken of him, himself, not just attention taken in the context of covering the event he was connected to? So far none has been suggested. It's a real concern.


 * As an alternative for a subject that has been noticed almost entirely for a single event, we could try for an article on that event, Wild Animus book release controversy (WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO), but nobody seems to be arguing that the event is notable either. Extra sources on the book release event are nice, but they aren't core to an article on a living person, and it's the living person that needs notability shown. We need evidence Sheparo himself (not just the book event) was considered "worthy of notice" by being the focus of "non trivial works" (WP:N). FT2 (Talk 16:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You continue to say that no significant coverage has been found, when the fact is that this gives the man himself over 400 words of biographical information and quotes. How can you argue against that as significant coverage? (As an aside, I notice that you didn't attempt to last time I brought it up but still went on to make this comment.) Alzarian16 (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Because it's not speaking to his notability, which is the whole focus of WP:NOT, WP:N, WP:BIO.


 * Put simply, the focus for that source and the reason for its writing is not "Shapero is worth noticing, let's write about him. (And while writing about him let's comment on his book)". It's the other way round, "The book launch is worth noticing, let's write about it. (And while writing about it let's provide some background on the author)".


 * In other words, we have information about him, but not evidence of his own notability. Having verifiable sources is not the same as notability. Being covered in relation to an event does not signify notability for the person (WP:BLP1E). Multiple sources are preferred to evidence notability (WP:N):
 * "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself... have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it " (WP:N and WP:BIO).
 * This bit is crucial. We need to assess the evidence to see if it really shows the subject was felt worthy of attention by the independent source. Not just say "it's got X words in verifiable reliable sources". In the citations you're providing it's not the man that's been deemed worth the attention of an article, but the book launch, and that's a crucial difference. The man is covered only as part of (and due to) coverage of one event - the book launch. As an individual, there's no evidence he gained significant notice beyond his role as author of a book being launched.


 * No "Rich Shapero" editorial seems to exist in mainstream media. Not even one source that directly shows the man being picked out as being worthy of attention in his own right beyond the one role or event of "author-promoter of a specific book".


 * That's the issue. We have no evidence he is notable as a VC or businessman beyond that. None of the hits that have been suggested show such coverage in any other role. Most hits are extremely meagre. The "10 hits" cited include 3 from student newspapers. We don't yet have any coverage that meets policy or guidelines and demonstrates for notability of the man himself. That's the issue. FT2 (Talk 20:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Come on. He's covered.  This reminds me of arguments that we shouldn't cover baseball players unless they have coverage outside of baseball.  We've covered an author for who almost all coverage is due to his book and stuff related to that book.  That's exactly what you'd expect of any author.  You are raising the bar in an unrealistic way.  I am appreciative of the fact you are doing so in the discussion rather than as a closer this time, but that doesn't mean the bar you are setting is the one we generally use. Hobit (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But look carefully - "all coverage" so far is minimal - and what does exist, all relates to one specific event where the event (not the man) is the focus. Classic WP:BLP1E. Not like baseball players who have an entire ongoing career, and do get regular mainstream non-trivial coverage focused on the player themselves. False comparison. The asserted "coverage" speaking to his notability is virtually non-existent when checked - 3 student newspapers and a routine bunch of " says " type of unimportant indiscriminate mentions elsewhere. Show notability of the man, not just that he's discussed in relation to one event. We frequently allow that someone is notable for just a few mentions - but almost inevitably these are focused on the proposed subject directly. In this case none are. The minimal sources that exist that could evidence editorial discrimination, aren't focused on the man but on the event he's connected with and promoted. That's what got "noticed". Not the man. FT2 (Talk 20:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * When the questions asked of him in an interview are things like "where did you grow up" and "When did you become a storyteller?" and "If you had a book club, what would it be reading?" seems like questions about the person, not the book. There are plenty.  At this point I guess we need to agree to disagree.   Hobit (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - references given provide sufficient evidence of notability. Robofish (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I do take FT2's point that since all the references are in connection with his book, this may be a case of WP:BLP1E; however, writing a notable book is usually considered reason enough to have an article on the author, and in this case the book at least is obviously notable. Robofish (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTINHERITED - I would not agree that an author becomes notable because his book launch was. WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO appear to agree - both state that a person is notable for one matter, usually has an article on that matter and a redirect from the BLP to it. Especially if sources on the BLP subject are poor or that is the sole source of any notice for him. FT2 (Talk 22:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * NOTINHERITED generally applies to being a member of a group or organization, which doesn't confer notability. However, it specifically states there that books, films, and music are different, as they are direct works of a person, so their notability does confer on the person that created them. Silver  seren C 22:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That's very incorrect, sorry. It says  in certain circumstances  notability guidelines make exceptions. For books, the exception is authors who are "so historically significant" that any of their writings automatically become notable too - which doesn't apply. Generalizing this as "books confer notability on their authors" (paraphrase) is a very serious misreading. Go reread WP:NOTINHERITED and note that "parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited 'up', from notable subordinate [entity or topic] to parent [entity or topic]". FT2 (Talk 23:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I do agree with the principle of WP:NOTINHERITED, but in cases like this one it seems to me that the author and the book are so closely interlinked that it's hard to say which is the 'notable' one - any article on the author would necessarily say a lot about the book, while any article on the book would necessarily cover the author and how he published it. I don't think it really matters which we go with - I'd be entirely happy renaming this article to Wild Animus and focusing it on the book, because that would make little difference in practice to its content. But I do think an article should be kept here. Robofish (talk) 10:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Whilst it is clear that Wild Animus is notable enough for inclusion, I am not seeing what significance Mr Shapero has. It is perhaps telling that his article is dominated by a short section on his novel, which itself is notable in no small part because of the way it was promoted rather than because of his own importance as an author or other literary figure. I would have to concur that WP:BLP1E is applicable here. The absence of decent third-party sources and the more general unencyclopedic perception that I have of the article has me thinking that the best course would be to delete, or as an equal preference to redirect to an article on Wild Animus. AGK   22:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Per FT2 and AGK above, I believe the article ought to be moved to Wild Animus and re-written to mention Shapero only as the author of the book. Sources 1 and 3-6 are passing mentions of Shapero, insufficient to establish his notability on a personal level, and should be removed. In my opinion, we do have the sources for an article, but one focused on the book and the controversy it generated. Glass  Cobra  01:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There are actually two kinds of source under consideration: those about Shapero (and I think they're mostly sourced to his company or his company's press-releases, so I don't see many of them as terribly reliable); and those about the book launch. The problem with those about the book launch is that they're essentially hatchet-jobs; they're erudite ways of saying "omg phail!" and I think it would be hard to distil those into a neutral, encyclopaedic article.  I remain of the view that a mention of Shapero belongs in the bottom paragraph here, where he can be identified among the "other well-known self-published authors", but that the sources to write an article that's really about Shapero or really about Wild Animus do not presently exist.— S Marshall  T/C 02:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Look at that list though. Crane ("prolific.. recognized by modern critics as one of the most innovative writers of his generation"), Cummings ("preeminent voice of 20th century poetry, as well as one of the most popular"), Chopra ("translated into 35 languages and sold more than 20 million copies").. that's a list of notable self-published authors who succeeded in a big way.


 * Evidence suggests Shapero massively promoted a giveaway book which still didn't get many mainstream media mentions, it didn't go anywhere much, and then wasn't much heard of again to date. If there's a list of notable promotional campaigns then a mention there would be sensible. FT2 (Talk 18:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, insufficiently notable. Hairhorn (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The references and sources now found for this article provides significant coverage. There is enough to meet WP:GNG. Kugao (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Which references and sources exactly you considering to show notability of Shapero himself ?
 * GNG, especially for a WP:BIO, has wordings like these:
 * " Multiple [substantial] sources are generally expected "
 * "The evidence must show... that this was not a mere flash in the pan ..."
 * "Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability ... The barometer of notability is whether people... have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works... that focus upon it " (the focus of most sources and the reason they are written, is agreed to be the book launch)
 * "When an individual is significant for their role in a single event... the general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person "
 * "when an individual plays a major role in a minor event... generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident ..."
 * Sources: WP:N, WP:BIO. FT2 (Talk 21:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by NuclearWarfare. Before I begin, I want to say that I was asked to take a look at this discussion by another party.
 * Most of what can be found about sources has already been found, and it is now up to us to analyze whether or not they are enough to pass WP:SIGCOV (I use that shortcut deliberately instead of GNG, to remind us that what we are looking for is significant coverage of a person, not just bare mentions)
 * The article is essentially split into two sections, an introduction on the man and then a section about the book. Let us analyze those one by one.
 * The introduction mentions several things. The subject
 * grew up in Los Angeles and attended UC Berkeley where he graduated in 1970 with a degree in English literature.
 * is a partner at the Crosspoint
 * is a board member at AristaSoft
 * is a board member at New Edge Networks
 * These are all cited facts. However, none of those individually would even make a stab at notability, especially as none of the companies he is a partner/board member for are bluelinked. We must then turn to the second part of the article, which discusses the novel he wrote, Wild Animus.
 * The first criteria of Notability (books) is "The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[4]" The book, as well as perhaps the campaign, might meets that criterion. A number of non-trivial sources have commented on the book, but a great deal of the supposed reliable sources are college newspapers. I have looked in on student publications for a number of universities, and usually I can see that the fact-checking that the major papers have just aren't there for student ones. So we can mark the book/campaign as borderline notable at best.
 * It seems that the book might be notable and the person is not. However, the article as it stands it about the person, and not the book or the promotional campaign. The article should be renamed and refocused to include more information about the book if it is kept at all. NW ( Talk ) 01:47, 1 June 2010 (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.