Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Parkinson (entrepreneur)


 * 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. Lourdes 00:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Parkinson (entrepreneur)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability. Lavishly referenced, but references seem to be about his companies rather than himself. TheLongTone (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Peapod. He is not notable but the company he founded is. Sonstephen0 (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. I did my research properly before writing this page. I discovered, the topic passes the notability guidelines as stated in WP:BIO and WP:GNG. I found significant featuring of the topic in most of the references used. A few of them that caught my attention include
 * https://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20161201/NEWS07/161139970/itemmaster-a-peapod-spinoff-expanding
 * https://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20140118/ISSUE01/301189980/peapod-launches-business-deliveries-opens-chicago-tech-lab-pickup-sites
 * https://privatelabelretailer.com/founders-stories-featuring-andrew-thomas-parkinson-peapod/
 * https://www.chicagobusiness.com/node/781896
 * https://www.digitalcommerce360.com/2015/03/17/whats-your-customers-refrigerator/

The above and others are mostly organic. They are not sponsored. Yes, most of the references feature Thomas and Peapod which is a company he founded alongside his brother Andrew. He's featured in most of the references because he is at the center of it all. I believe, with the above, the topic meets the notability guidelines as I read from WP:BIO and WP:GNG Wat heeft Egbuel (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It's a bit odd that all "keep" opinions are by editors with very few edits.
 * Keep Significant coverage is found in the sources used. This scales through WP:GNG et al Catorce2016 (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Most Sources show the topic is notable to great extent. WP:BIO is established hereMariah200 (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep References on page feature the guy in accordance with WP:GNG as already opined above Quarterto500 (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: For same reason as sandstein above

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 01:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC) There are other references as found in the article. The above are organic references earned. They were never sponsored. Wat heeft Egbuel (talk) 04:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. OK, let's get this over with: the first two Chicago Business refs are basically only about the company Peapod with no apparent WP:SIGCOV of the the subject of the article. The last one is a profile of Andrew and Thomas Parkinson, that just barely gets over the line for WP:SIGCOV. The Private Label Retailer piece is a summary of a video of an interview and thus not sufficiently independent/not a secondary source. The Digital Commerce 360 piece is largely verbatim quotes from a speech given by Thomas Parkinson, and thus does not sustain notability for the same reason as the Private Label Retailer piece. Conclusion: only one piece of potential WP:SIGCOV cited, and that's not enough to sustain notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FOARP (talk • contribs) 11:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank u for the analysis. But a critical look at the references you mentioned reveals that significant coverage is fully established especially that of Chicago Business which is a well known reference source. Take a look at the following secondary sources again.
 * https://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20161201/NEWS07/161139970/itemmaster-a-peapod-spinoff-expanding
 * https://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20140118/ISSUE01/301189980/peapod-launches-business-deliveries-opens-chicago-tech-lab-pickup-sites
 * https://privatelabelretailer.com/founders-stories-featuring-andrew-thomas-parkinson-peapod/
 * https://www.digitalcommerce360.com/2015/03/17/whats-your-customers-refrigerator/
 * Delete per FOARP's analysis of sources. A redirect to Peapod might be appropriate. Rockphed (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment*** same response as above. Significant coverage is established.Wat heeft Egbuel (talk) 04:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per FOARP. If there was just one more source where Thomas Parkinson was the main subject and not his company I would be inclined to vote keep. As it stands, it just barely does not meeting the threshold of the sourcing requirements at WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as per FOARP's analysis of the sources and my scanning of all bar one of those FOARP listed. (I haven't checked but I read a comment recently that more than one source from the same publication does not count additionally toward notability.) -Lopifalko (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete / Redirect to Peapod. All sources are focusing on the company itself, there doesn't seem to be anything about him on his own. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2019 (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.