Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Next Internet Millionaire


 * 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. The promotionalism concerns may have been addressed by Cunard's rewrite, but a renomination remains possible.  Sandstein  11:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The Next Internet Millionaire

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:GNG, no substantial sources to establish notability. Aside from passing mentions like this and this, and the single Denver Post piece already cited, there's not much aside from their own PR. Brianhe (talk) 01:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - one source wonder Smallbones( smalltalk ) 03:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete This stuck around for seven years? Wow...very few sources and just didn't get any traction, though I'll say I give them a few points for keeping the website and YouTube up to date.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 07:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Not particularly notable. Especially since nobody became an "Internet millionare" as a result of it.  No notable startup resulted. John Nagle (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Was going to delete judging from the mess that is the article, but I found quite a bit of significant coverage in other sources: Wired (1, 2), The Florida Times-Union (1, 2), and The Pueblo Chieftain (1). While not a lengthy article, the first source provided by Brianhe is more than a trivial mention; ditto for this Daily Beast article. 23W 18:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Excellent research from .  The article notes: "A Loveland entrepreneur who has reportedly made millions with his online ventures is trying to do the same for others - with a reality-TV twist. Joel Comm, who sold his first business to Yahoo Inc. in 1997, is the co-creator and host of 'The Next Internet Millionaire,' an 'Apprentice'- type reality show being filmed in Loveland. The show will be aired exclusively online beginning Aug. 15. ... Twelve contestants from the U.S., Canada, Costa Rica and England were chosen based on videos they submitted to the show. The videos also appeared on YouTube. Web users had a chance to weigh in on the final 12, but the choice was ultimately up to Comm.  Hundreds of people submitted video entries. The six men and six women are competing for $25,000 and the chance to develop a joint venture with Comm.  ...  The show has several sponsors and a crew of 15, who are following the contestants as they complete their tasks. Comm wouldn't say how much he's spending to produce the show but said it totals more than the production budget of the independent film 'Napoleon Dynamite,' which according to Box officemojo.com. was $400,000. The show also brings in 'teachers' or experts in various Web fields to help guide the contestants through their tasks. Dave Taylor, a Boulder-based blogging and Internet guru, is expected to make an appearance during taping this week."   The article notes: "The new 'Next Internet Millionaire' production is slicker, more professional, and easily something you might find on broadcast television. Whether that’s good or bad, you decide. The point is, this no longer looks like a fly-by-night hustle job. The show now has a host, legitimate sponsors from the technology space and, dare we say it, a couple of interesting moments. Although the reality show genre is pretty much DOA at this point, emerging online video show creators should note the way this show quickly ramped up the quality—this is your new competition."   The article notes: "So far, Chance has survived the first round of voting, which whittled 300 applicants to a pool of 50. The online voting, which will count for 30 percent of her second round score, ends Wednesday. Should Chance make it to the next round, she'll be in the running for a trip to Colorado, where 12 finalists will be filmed competing for the top prize: $25,000 and the chance to form a joint venture with the show's creator, Internet marketer Joel Comm. While competing for the top prize, contestants will be 'taught' how to make more money online by a panel of 'Internet marketing experts,' many of whom sell their own lines of books based on their money-making tactics. They will also compete in challenges similar to those on television. Show creator Comm, an Internet marketer, claims to have all the tools to squeeze profitability from Internet ventures. He owns several domains ranging from online coupons to a personal blog. However, one of Comm's more notable Web sites, the family-friendly World Village, has seen rapidly declining traffic, with the number of global Internet users visiting the site dropping 37 percent within 3 months, according to Alexa, a Web tracking company." </li> <li> The article notes: "The Next Internet Millionaire This show aired in the fall of 2007 and pulled out all the stops: a high-drama entrance by host Joel Comm in a stretch Expedition limo, a panel of expert judges, and stunt-based tasks aimed at sending the contestants packing. The key fault in this otherwise slickly produced show about the oh-so-glamorous world of, um, internet marketing was the host, internet geek—I mean, web marketing guru (and shameless self-promoter)—Joel Comm. Canadian Jaime Luchuck was declared the winner, and Joel is surely proud: she too now hawks her book From Cubicle Slave to the Next Internet Millionaire online. (Even better, when you try to navigate away from her site, you get every annoying pop-up ad ever created, making you wish internet marketing never existed in the first place.) You can also tune in to Joel Comm’s new YouTube self-celebration, The Dot Comm Story."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Next Internet Millionaire to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 04:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Delete If it is notable, an uninvolved editor can write an appropriate article. This sort of paid writing is promotional enough that it is better to remove it and start over.  DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi . I've reviewed the article and don't find it promotional. Would you point out which parts of it are promotional so I can fix those issues so this article on a notable topic can be kept? Cunard (talk) 02:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am thinking of it in context with the other contributions by . it is part of a promotional campaign for Joel Comm. Lately, you & I have been going in different directions at a number of articles: you're trying to show they're notable and should be kept, and I am trying to showing that if they are themselves promotional or part of a promotional campaign or by an undeclared COI editor, the presumption should be otherwise.  I recognize that you're prepared to make up their deficiencies, which is just what I used to do, until I came to the realization that encouraging the use of WP for promotion must be discouraged to maintain our basic principle, that WP is an encycopedia. The only way to discourage it effectively is to delete the articles, unless the subject is so well known it would be absurd not to have an article--and in that case it should still be deleted, but then rewritten. I understand your  view on these, for I used to share it.   DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If the article does not read as promotional (which it does not), then Deanshanson's other contributions have little relevance to whether the article should be kept. You wrote, "The only way to discourage it effectively is to delete the articles, unless the subject is so well known it would be absurd not to have an article--and in that case it should still be deleted, but then rewritten." I rewrote the article because I think it would be absurd not to have this article on a notable topic.  Cunard (talk) 04:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 08:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Like DGG mentioned above, this article is promotional and I have no idea how its stood for quite long. However, unless a complete copyedit and adding of notable sources are done, this article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrWooHoo (talk • contribs) 03:42, 1 August 2015‎ (UTC)
 * Thank you for acknowledging the topic is notable per Notability based on the sources. Although AfD is not cleanup, I've rewritten the article to address the concerns here even though no one has pointed out how the article is promotional. Cunard (talk) 04:55, 1 August 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.