Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Salis


 * 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. ✗ plicit  01:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Steve Salis

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Appears to be a non-notable businessperson. All coverage appears to either be hyperlocal (inside the DC beltway), niche industry, and run-of-the-mill financial announcements about his various businesses. Paid creation and ongoing paid editing, some of which is likely undisclosed. valereee (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Washington, D.C.. valereee (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree, non-notable. hyper local covergae Oaktree b (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: I see no assertion of importance or significance here. This is a living person who operates some businesses, has raised some money, and has had legal issues. Like the nominator, I see a few local sources about his business but not much directly detailing the subject. A reasonable search finds lots of self promotion and some marginal, routine business news but nothing approaching the standard of multiple independent and reliable sources directly detailing the subject. The subject exists, does business, and is a relatively successful self-promoter, like tens of thousands of small businesses owners across the DC area. However, Wikipedia is neither Facebook nor Linkedin. You don't automatically get a Wikipedia page just because you want one or paid for one. BusterD (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment:  Chiming in, obviously not to vote, but to address a few issues. Specifically, I’d like to address two points:
 * "hyperlocal, niche industry" Having mostly local coverage or coverage within a niche industry is not an impediment to meeting GNG. WP:AUD only applies to organizations, not people or other subjects.
 * "run-of-the-mill coverage" - This Washington Post article is a lengthy profile piece on Salis in the Food section of an international paper of record, and This Washingtonian article is another WP:RS all about Salis's background and career. None of these are routine.


 * As the article history clearly demonstrates, I have disclosed my connection with the subject; editing, changes, and content suggestions have been made and reviewed by numerous neutral, unaffiliated editors, including, , , , and . I ask that the discussion here please focus on relevant guidelines. Sheena 2022 (talk) 12:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Sheena 2022, the fact multiple other editors, even ones with long experience, edited the article doesn't necessarily mean an article subject is notable. Sometimes it takes someone who is extremely familiar with a particular subject area to think, hey...are we sure this guy's notable? I did go in and look at the sources before I nominated this. These are all either very local (including WaPo and the Washingtonian), or are in niche industry sources (like Nation's Restaurant News) or are run-of-the-mill financial stuff, like American City Business Journals. Plus the stuff in the industry/business journals are about the businesses, not about him. In general what we need to see are three articles like the WaPo one about him; of those three, two need to be outside his local area AND outside industry niche publication. ETA: you are perfectly welcome to !vote, but be aware that it's not actually a vote. We call it a !vote ("not vote") because the closer looks at the arguments, not the numbers. valereee (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: a paid or connected editor, no matter how previously successful, is in exactly NO position to chide established and trusted editors about what we should and shouldn't cover in an AfD about a subject with which they are clearly conflicted and have a financial stake. I do appreciate the presented sources, but these profiles meet the definition of routine dining and business news. This news space would have otherwise been filled with a similar article about another restauranteur/entrepreneur as appears almost daily in those journals. BLP is a policy, not a guideline; in order to protect any living person, Wikipedia requires a higher level of sourcing than that we might normally accept in an article about a restaurant or a real estate business. I'm not seeing sufficient direct detailing to move the needle for me. BusterD (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of subject himself (rather than associated organizations) receiving significant coverage outside of the local area; no clear significance or assertion of broader importance.  Spencer T• C 17:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: Like the other experienced editors, I'm not seeing non-local sigcov; just the usual fluff local interest pieces that WaPo's just as prone to printing as any supermarket weekly. (And that being said, I'm with BusterD -- nothing prohibits a paid editor from registering his or her opinion at AfD, but it wasn't seemly even before said editor complained on the Notability talk page at the position taken by every other editor here. Beyond that, claiming the support of other editors by virtue of them also editing the article is disingenuous at best, especially when the bulk of their contributions was to clean up the excessive fluff of the previous paid editor.)   Ravenswing      04:19, 24 May 2022 (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.