Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skip Prichard


 * 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Skip Prichard

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Executive who fails WP:BIO. Failed draft in WP:AFC moved into mainspace after failing review. No indication of notability. scope_creep (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete We really need to make it so articles in AfC have to actually pass to be turned into mainspace articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I know nothing about Prichard and I've never seen the article before. I clicked on the link labeled "news" as part of the AfD header and found the following sources on the first page of listings. There was "Skip Prichard Named OCLC President and CEO " from Information Today, Inc. from back in 2013, and both "Q&A: Skip Prichard: OCLC chief invested in sharing knowledge, leadership skills", from The Columbus Dispatch and "ALA 2017 Spotlight: Four Questions with Skip Prichard", from Publishers Weekly from this month. Sources in the article, such as "An Interview with Skip Prichard" in American Libraries, only add to the breadth of reliable and verifiable, in-depth sources about Prichard. I'm sure that the nominator and the participant who voted to delete are justifiably irked that this article didn't properly graduate through the AfC process, again one I know nothing about. But the claim of notability as head of OCLC and the ample sources about the subject in the article and available to be added all meet and surpass the notability standard. It's not clear, given how trivially I found these sources, that the bare minimum requirements of WP:BEFORE to search for sources was met by the nominator. I hope that both  and  will withdraw this AfD and / or reconsider their votes, or at least offer a more meaningful justification for deletion than the issue of a "[f]ailed draft in WP:AFC moved into mainspace after failing review" in the face of the ample sources identified. Alansohn (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Alansohn, The reason I Afd's him, was I thought he was non notable. All the sources you have provided are interviews and press releases. The information today article, says In the press release, Prichard says, That is a press release. They are not news, and are not secondary sources. They are a mixture of Q and A for the sellling his book, press releases and interviews, which fails qualify. scope_creep (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The source Skip Prichard Named OCLC President and CEO is broader than a press release or an interview. It is a news report – from a news outlet that is respectable enough to have its own Wikipedia article – giving significant coverage of the subject. Interviews are a perfectly acceptable source for establishing notability as long as they appear in a reliable source. It is not unusual for news outlets to base an article on a press release, but when they research the subject and provide more coverage than a simple regurgitation of the release, we have to take into account the reputation of the news outlet and its editorial function in fact-checking. From our article on Information Today, Inc., there is real evidence that the publication is "widely cited by information professionals" in its field, meeting our expectations of a reliable source. I don't agree that you can dismiss this source as "fails qualify" on a your interpretation of our sourcing policies, and if you disagree with a source's reliablity, we have the WP:RSN where you can get more opinions. That should have been part of WP:BEFORE in this case. --RexxS (talk) 11:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Just as a side note Infotoday lists at the bottom of the article you provided some sponsored links and the very first one is " The OCLC Next blog provides insight about work being done by and for libraries worldwide." I think this may mean that we can question the independent nature of this source as the article is in-depth coverage of the CEO of a company that pays to have its blog in this source. I would also point out that the person who created this article, who I have been told on my talk page is a librarian, has been adding a lot of external links to the collections in Wayne State University Libraries (which is very much in line with the WP:GLAM project so no problem there I think). The dean of this organisation is quoted in your source as having written an open letter in support of Prichard. I am not suggesting that there is anything underhand going on but there may be a small COI issue that may need some disclosure from the article creator. Domdeparis (talk) 11:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Historical note -- the OCLC Next Blog was launched in February 2016 (the Information Today note you are referring to is I think from 2013). Also the dean of libraries at Wayne State University retired last year and a new dean came in 2017. And in any case saying that a librarian has a conflict of interest because her bosses boss (or even bosses bosses boss....) has written a letter of support for an individual seems like a bit of a stretch? The article has at this point had contributions well beyond that of the original editor. (Noting here my own CIO) 18:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merrilee (talk • contribs)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG for me - the "ample sources identified" by Alansohn are only marginally-above-routine coverage in trade journals (librarian) and local newspapers (Ohio, where OCLC is based). Meanwhile, "leadership blogger" in the lede and a yet-to-be-published book in the "Publications" section scream WP:SPAM. That this article was pushed into mainspace just 2 months before the book's release date (6 February 2018) can only make one ponder. Wikipedia is no WP:SOAPBOX. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 11:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: Clearly meets GNG. Furthermore, the nominator's claim that the article was "moved into mainspace after failing review" is false. It was reviewed, by User:Brock-brac, and as a result, moved to article space. I concur with that action. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: In my role at WMF I run The Wikipedia Library and OCLC is a major partner of ours, so take this strong conflict of interest declaration as you must (with a huge grain of salt, perhaps). OCLC is the largest library organization in the world and Prichard has been a leading figure in the publishing world for well over a decade. Skip has been featured in the leading industry publications: American Libraries Magazine (twice), Publisher's Weekly, Library Journal, Information Today, and Book Expo America (C-SPAN). Outside of these leading library publications, Harvard Business Review wrote of his prominent social profile:
 * "Many social CEOs aren’t social just because they have a company to run; they see value in being social in every aspect of their lives. They care about more than the bottom line. They give back, they mentor, and they care about real social issues that have nothing to do with Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn. We refer to those who act consistently in a collaborative, generous way as “relentless givers.” They constantly share what they know, connect others and — often for no other reason than because it is the right thing to do — they do good. One standout example is OCLC’s Skip Prichard, who blogs on leadership and shares insights from his favorite authors." Take this information as you will. With my admittedly close connection to OCLC, I have a hard time seeing how its very visible and influential CEO is not notable. Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 17:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Prichard served as VP of LexisNexis, president and CEO of ProQuest and pres. and CEO of Ingram, all 3 very large companies in the information industry. Above that, Prichard is a gifted speaker, who also writes enthusiastically about leadership and information technology. You know what's strange? That this longtime publishing innovator (dixit Publishers Weekly) didn't get a Wiki article five years ago. Vysotsky (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Vysotsky and others. CEO of OCLC alone is a very big deal, this is a leader in his field.   Montanabw (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. You're kidding, right? OCLC is second only to the Library of Congress in its importance to libraries in the US.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 22:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I find that the leaders in their field tend to be covered more in the relevant trade press, professional journals and the like, given the preference of the mainstream media to focus on politics, sport and "celebrities" and a preference for stories about how people fail or do bad things (the sensational) rather than how they achieve or do good things. So we have to look at reliable sources relative to the subject matter as per WP:RSCONTEXT. Kerry (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment You seem to be conflating the importance of the OCLC with the man. Notability is not inherited. Indeed, so far I have been offered a mixture of trade papers entries, interviews and press releases. Wikipedia deals in evidence, WP:BIO in instance, and WP:V. Gamaliel,  Montanabw , where is your evidence. OCLC is second only to the Library of Congress isn't a rationale for WP:AFD. We deal in the physical actualite, the real acutialite. Not social comments, merely designed to add the voice. Where is the evidence? Vysotsky being a CEO is not automatically notable, and that doesn't make him notable. Size doesn't confer notablity. Source, evidence of presence, second and tertiary sources that are verifiable. Andy Mabbett, that secondary information provided on the WP:AFD reason. If you look at the talk page of WP:AFC, I argued for User:Brock-brac, to move on, and consider it a simple mistake. The reason it failed WP:AFC, was because it had no valid references. It strong enough to not fail WP:AFD. We must provide evidence that an bio articles subject is notable, otherwise it breaks both the Spirit and the Letter of Wikipedia. It can rely simple conjecture, he's cool, he is really, lets put in, because he runs the OCLC, which is a partner organization of WMF. We need real source. Real verifiable information. Not emotion. So far the references offered are routine coverage in trade journals. They need to be stronger than that. Ocaasi find sources that satisfy WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you try to be slightly less patronizing and mansplaining to a group of people who have 60+ years combined of experience editing Wikipedia? Thanks.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 01:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Disagree. My keep was twofold. Of course "being a CEO is not automatically notable". But Pritchard is interesting because of the combination of having been a CEO of 3 companies in the information field (which in my opinion would suffice in this case) and because of his long-term view and his ability to reflect upon his field, for a general audience. Sources? Gosh, Publishers Weekly is not exactly the new kid on the block. Vysotsky (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Kerry, that is entirely subjective, no research has been done on it by WP, and can't be proven. Your statement smacks of emotion not reason, without any real evidence to support it, perhaps to support a desire for a keep vote, in this instance, where there is no evidence to satisfy WP:BIO. From my evidence, which is also subjective,  most CEO's tend to makes waves, in one area or another, even in fairly obscure industries like Library Science. It is worth commenting Vysotsky, it is curious, he didn't get an article five years ago, but an article has automagically appeared, even though it was rejected at WP:AFC, 31 days before his book is out. If that is not mercenary advertising, which breaks WP:ADVERTISING, I don't know what is. User:Cunard is excellent at finding sources.scope_creep (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * scope_creep, you have had your chance to put your opinion as nominator and have (by starting this AfD) invited others to expresss their views. The reason to have a discussion is because things are rarely black-and-white and there is need for each of us to exercise our judgement in good faith. I would draw your attention to policy on AfD discussions, specifically the advice to "Avoid personal attacks against people who disagree with you; avoid the use of sarcastic language and stay cool". As a piece of practical emotional intelligence, if you don't show respect for other people's point of view, it will likely strengthen people's resolve against your position (regardless of its merits). Kerry (talk) 09:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Obscure industries". There are more libraries than McDonald's or Starbucks in the US, chief.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 01:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Article was started in June.... Merrilee (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Ok, Vysotsky taking it as read that PW, and Info Today are valid primary sources per arguments as they have articles, although it doesn't look it, where is the secondary sources? All your arguments are based on the fact that he is out there, and everbody knows him, and he's a good guy, where is the evidence to back it up? scope_creep (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You're going to have to work out the difference between primary and secondary sources for biographies. A quality news article on a person or a book about them has passed through a process of editorial review. We rely on independent publishers that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to offer us the reliability we need to write articles. A reporter's notes may well be a primary source for some events in a person's life, but the published article itself, having been subject to editorial scrutiny is a step removed and meets what we are looking for in a secondary source – see Notability (people) for our guidelines on that. Examine a few contemporary biographies and see how much of them is sourced to coverage similar to what you're objecting to. Look at biographies of deceased individuals – you'll often find that short bios are almost invariably sourced to obituaries in the quality press. You may also consider the essay Interviews to gain further insight to how these sort of news sources are used by editors for Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry folks, I was a bit bolshie. I thought the article was created recently. I never realized it created a few months ago. scope_creep (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is mind boggling that the person who was CEO of two prominent companies in the publishing/library world, and is currently the head of the most prominent libraries organization in the US (outside of government) is described as "completely non notable" . That characterization is so stunningly poor that the rest of the critique is easily dismissed, including saying there is "no indication of notability." There are plenty of sources given including sources prominent in the field, mainstream newspapers and Harvard Business Review. Also, out of thin air, phantom policies like "notability is not inherited" have been put forth. Ever since Wikipedia was started, we have always considered the position or title of a person as a signal of notability and we continue to do so.   Is this article in great shape and is the prose consistent with what we'd like to see? No. But that's not the point of AfD and notability. Instead of being punitive and vindictive, let the article exist and let folks improve it. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 16:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources in the article are enough to establish notability, as you'd expect for the head of such a notable organisation. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2017 (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.