Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomas Gorny (3rd 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.

Tomas Gorny
The result was No consensus to delete. The full listing period has expired; a full discussion has taken place; and editors cannot agree whether to delete this material.— S Marshall T/C 13:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)''' AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Please see not only the past AfDs closed as Delete but also see the AfDs for the Nextiva company itself at Articles for deletion/Nextiva (3rd nomination) (4 whopping nominations, the last one closing in the last 3 weeks) and then also Draft:Nextiva, so it's troubling to see how there were such numerous attempts at advertising both the man and company, therefore that's what the current article still is, only advertising what his career and the company is about; the sources themselves echo this and this article should not have been blatantly accepted from AfC last month. Note also how this last Tomas Gorny AfD was in January, and yet the listed contents are all for events and information in both 2014 and 2015 with the new sources also apparently simply existing to advertise him. SwisterTwister  talk  06:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk) 11:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk) 11:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk) 11:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per GNG: 1.) it has enough references 2.) it was reviewed by admins and their conclusion was that it meet GNG and 3.) the last person who nominated the page to AfD also agrees that it now meets GNG.
 * 1.) It is correct that the subject was at AfD 2 times before (and this is the 3rd). The last AfD was January 2016. In the summer of 2016, new news coverage came out about the subject on multiple papers such as Huff Post, Business Insider, Chicago Tribune. The articles are about him specifically and the his story is the personification of the American Dream, hence why it got coverage in other countries as well such as Vietnam, Romania, and Czech Republic.
 * 2.) The second AfD also resulted in the namespace being salted. This article was submitted to AfC by me and reviewed by User:KGirlTrucker81. User:KGirlTrucker81 then submitted it for DRV, which the admins determined sufficient enough for it to be unsalted. You can read the DRV here. The conclusion was that the subject has enough coverage from reliable sources to be included in the Encyclopedia. User:Sandstein was the reviewing admin.
 * 3.) Finally, User:Rklawton, the person who nominated the subject to AfD the second time, also agrees that he now meets GNG (see User_talk:Rklawton). CerealKillerYum (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to note that I did not express an opinion of my own about the notability of the topic.  Sandstein   15:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep: Passes GNG. KGirlTrucker81huh? what I'm been doing 14:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, on the basis of the couple of substantial news articles about him since the previous AfD in January, e.g. Business Insider and Huffington Post Blog. Though the Forbes piece and the Chicago Tribune Community pieces are submitted by non-journalist contributors which suggests there is a bit of a campaign going on to raise Gorny's profile. I'd suggest the article is watched closely for excessive promotion. Sionk (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sionk above. Also other experienced editors involved in the unsalt discussion before the AFCH that led to this version of this subject agree meets notability which I don't want to repeat here. This version also differs significantly from the previous deleted one as evidenced here.  Tushi  Talk To Me  18:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep or Keep Unclear why this discussion has been opened.  It is certainly not a notability concern.  The nomination uses the term "advertising" three times, so this might be a WP:NOT argument, but no evidence of a problem is identified, and there are no Wikilinks to either WP:NOT or WP:DEL14.  I also tried reading the article without seeing the concern.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - The concerns at DRV allowed unsalting and a new article however the current article is still not actually saying how he's independently notable and is in fact still advertising him like the past articles, therefore there's no Speedy Keep, and there's also no actual WP:GNG, especially if it's not actually explained in specific how Tomas satisfies it. Also, when an article is a blatant advertisement, there are several pages that can apply, WP:ADVERTISING, WP:NOT, WP:DEL14 and even WP:IAR, therefore the nomination itself lists the concerns, including how even the new sources themselves are still in fact advertising, caring to only specify what there to advertise about him.
 * Note for example the links above: They are literally interviews, "From rags to riches", "An inspiring story from Tomas Gorny", "Inspiring tips from Tomas Gorny"; as it is the HuffPost has become blatantly controlled by such PR advertising, and then the Forbes article is damningly listed as "from a special contributor", apparently by a freelance journalist meaning that journalist could've easily been paid or enticed by the company or Tomas itself. Also, considering the past concerns, simply boldly accepting it by itself without actually considering and noticing the past deletions (not to mention because of the still existing advertising information and sources in this exact article), is worrying by itself. Therefore, with all that, we cannot simply "Speedy Keep" including because the concerns still exist, and the DRV itself said "It can be tested at AfD again" and "It can go to AfD again". SwisterTwister   talk  22:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "independently notable" is not a policy based term. Articles don't have to show wp:notability. See the WP:N nutshell, which says, "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article."  The content policies are listed at Category:Wikipedia_content_policies.  It says this more than once in WP:N.  So the argument that Speedy keep doesn't apply because the article doesn't show notabiity is not sustained.  Again, WP:N does not require that the article "actually explain in specific how Tomas satisfies it", because WP:N is not a content guideline. Repeating the concern that the article is advertising without providing an explanation for how or why the article is advertising does not advance the argument.  As for the argument that a URL with the words "rags to riches" is advertising, this seems to me like normal expressive writing, and I'm not sure how any English definition of "advertising" would apply.  As far as content policy goes, this is the first time I've seen anyone argue that a hidden URL was a form of advertising to which WP:NOT could apply.  Even if it was, which I'm not suggesting, such a source could still contribute to WP:GNG, and then not be used on the article for WP:V.  As for interviews, it is an unusual interview that is completely the result of the topic approaching the interviewer.  All other interviews contribute to at least some extent to WP:GNG.  So there is nothing inherently wrong with interviews.  Citing WP:IAR requires explaining how ignoring the policies and guidelines improves the encyclopedia. As for the source from the Chicago Tribune from the Community Contributor, that doesn't appear to be a reliable source, which Sionk has already noted.  Sionk has also commented about the Forbes source.  As for the "HuffPost has become blatantly controlled by such PR advertising", what is the evidence?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:ADVERTISING is a dab page. Unscintillating (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As for forgetting to mention in the nomination that you thought the topic had notability problems, nominations bind the time of volunteers here, including administrators. It seems that you are not aware of what arguments your nominations have made.  I suggest that you report WP:BEFORE D1 results in every nomination you think has notability issues, check for alternatives to deletion before nominating, and give specific WP:DEL-REASONs in each nomination.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Here are the sources from the current article:




















 * Unscintillating (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - Once again when an advertising hands down needs removing in that it saves Wikipedia and saves itself from damages, that's all that matters; also, once again, relisting the sources once again is simply overfilling this page unnecessarily even after I have analyzed them and noted the blatant ones containing self-focused and self-supplied information such as interviews, published and republished life stories such as literally saying what he thinks about his own career. The local newspapers are obvious with this, and as it is, we ourselves at AfD have established that the BizJournals are never convincing or independent as they blatantly publish and republish press releases and anything else the subject(s) say about themselves.
 * The BizJournals is also obvious with this considering "See which 5 Arizona tech companies are among the fastest growing in the country" which not only advertises it, but also simply contains local information they want their clients and investors to know, therefore that contains nothing relevant for Wikipedia. In that case of said republished life story, see "How a Polish Immigrant Made Millions at 23, Lost it All and Made Everything Back" which is clearly something he would only say and therefore is not idnependent, it's even a blatant advertisement simply attempting to gain interest "Look at this story about a successful businessman". Also, as for the WP:ADVERTISING, it's self-explanatory with both WP:What Wikipedia is not#Soaphoax and also then WP:SPAM, both of which apply. We literally have to stop kidding ourselves and face the damning facts of such advertisements.
 * As for "it is an unusual interview that is completely the result of the topic approaching the interviewer. All other interviews contribute to at least some extent to WP:GNG.  So there is nothing inherently wrong with interviews." is not at all convincing for notability because we at AFD ourselves have established that interviews are not in fact convincing for notability as it only advertises what the subject(s) want to say about themselves, which is therefore advertising, equivalent to their own PR and republished PR. Even take for example ""Tomas Gorny" Named A Top 100 Champion", it's not only from a PR-publishing website, it's not actual substance let alone notability. The IPower link is literally their own "About Us" page. Other blatant interviews are "Destination American Dream: Technology Innovator Tomas Gorny Shares His Story" and "Tomas Gorny's story of his own company".
 * I still confirm everything else I've said above as they apparently have not been counteroffered or acknowledged as genuine concerns. Removing ourselves of such blatant advertisements which shouldn't have been quickly accepted from AfC, because such adverts can cause inexplicable damages, WP:IAR is fulfilled. SwisterTwister   talk  02:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So above I asked one question, and the question has received no response. Regarding your quote of what I said about interviews, my original had a Wikilink to WP:INTERVIEWS. I am a contributor to that essay.  I can't tell if you failed to notice the link or don't like what it says; but the point remains that it is not a policy based argument to claim that AfD ignores interviews. The idea that an interview "only advertises what the subject(s) want to say about themselves" makes me wonder what definition of "advertise" this is.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Rewrite. Possibly notable. We deleted one of his recent companies at Articles for deletion/Nextiva (3rd nomination) and even deleted the draft.  But his earlier work may be more significant, and since is was merged and then bought by a notable large firm, doesn't normally get a separate article. The problem is that the article is written in the conventional style used by paid editors:  1. His parents working class backgrounds.  2. The gift in childhood or adolescent which aroused his interest    3. His early part time jobs as an adolescent.   4, His early setback and near ruin, complete with personal details of his financial state,   5/his extreme efforts to raise seed money 6/the successful buyout of the firm by some actually notable company. 6/the minor stuff he's been doing since then.   7/the trivial awards   8. The refs. Mostly business magazines and local journals, with the 1 or 2 promotional articles in what used to be reputable  publications.
 * But much to my surprise this was written by an established editor, who has been active for several years, and who has been helpfully working on getting many pages on minor companies deleted. I therefore assume it's another case of the pervasive promotional  style being unconsciously adopted by a good faith editor. I'm sure they can do better with it.  DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * My inclination is delete per WP:TNT and as the founder of several non-notable companies (notability is not inherited, is non-notability?) It definitely needs a complete rewrite, and this needs to ruthlessly exclude all traces of churnalism. It is really really hard to WP:AGF here, so I suggest CerealKillerYum does not play any part in any rewrite. Guy (Help!) 00:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - removed fluff that was in the article and un-referenced material as part of working on the recommendations by other editors in this AFD. Tushi  Talk To Me  18:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- the rewritten article does not present a convincing case for notability or significance; merely an unremarkable serial entrepreneur associated with non notable entities. The source presented at this AfD are "fluff" -- interviews and admiring "leadership" stories. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The article passes WP:GNG. If there are parts of the article that are being used as a vehicle of promotion, they can be rewritten. However, that claim itself cannot be used to delete the article of someone who is clearly notable, as the citations in the article suggest. Bmbaker88 (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep is yet again not applicable here because of the fact this was specifically deleted before and thus it's relevant and necessary for community input once again; also, the links themselves listed still only focus with advertising himself and his businesses, therefore that's enough for opening to question as it is. SwisterTwister   talk  05:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your assessment about the citations in the article. They aren't press releases but sources that meet WP:IRS. It's therefore not accurate to state that they're advertisements. Just my two cents. Bmbaker88 (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The contents themselves are, because it's the man advertising himself and his businesses, making it still unacceptable, regardless of what the publication's name is. SwisterTwister   talk  00:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - From looking at the 2nd deletion discussion, the concern was that he is a local businessman. He is the CEO of a company that appears to be more than local. One reference also talks about him selling two other companies so he is more than just a CEO of a company, he is an actual entrepreneur. Even if he was local, he has gained significant coverage in reliable sources which makes him meet WP:GNG. Again, we will see the churnalism arguments but not sure how this meets that definition. Considered a reliable source and there is no evidence this is Native advertising as I do not see any sponsored tag on the article. A reliable source profiling a person like this does not mean it is churnalism. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - For all honesty, "also talks about him selling two other companies" has no basis for notability at all and, I'll note that even the listed 1 source above is in fact an interview from start to finish, it begins with the man stating his early beginnings to then literally a list of "lessons learned", none of that establishes notability, regardless of the publication's name, because it means nothing if it's all the subject's own words ("Tomas Gorny’s life is a true rags-to-riches story that should serve as an inspiration for any budding entrepreneur", although common usage, is still not something suitable for this article). In fact, every single sentence always begins by either an exact quote or still something coming from the man himself. If this were to be kept, it would need a hellstorm of actual improvements and not cosmetics of PR. SwisterTwister   talk  05:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You say it is an interview from start to finish. Maybe there is a language barrier here but you cannot honestly say that is an interview from start to finish. I do not see the questions and do not see the Q&A format that is seen in interview articles in the same publication such as this one. From reading the article, it is clear that they interviewed him for the story. Does that make it promotional? Does that make it unreliable? NO! That publication is reliable as it has standards of fact checking. They cannot "guess" about this man's history, they need to ask him. The reliability comes from their editorial standards and fact checking. As it stands, BI is considered a reliable source unless you can show me they didn't do any fact checking or that this is a native advertising article. So, I cannot accept your argument that it is an interview from start to finish and is not a reliable source. I'm going to have to maintain my !keep vote on this one. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - Yes to a "hellstorm of improvements" and that should have been the first thing to have been done rather than this AFD. Deleting articles because they lack in some areas that can be addressed is surely against the AFD policy. From the article history it can be seen that you SwisterTwister, did not make any such attempt and coming on here is against the AGF principle. I will mention that some experienced users above have suggested an improvement on the article which is what we should all strive to do to the article and others rather than use our energies here lobbying for deletion and keep. If it can improved then that is what should be done for now. Tushi  Talk To Me  13:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * First there's no need to make any improvements to the article because, as the DRV stated, a new AfD would in fact be necessary given its long history of controversy here at AfD, thus here we are. Also, because this article is still an advertisement, it's also necessary for community input, especially because such advertisements are damning us as an encyclopedia, therefore it cannot be said "Let's simply go focus with another article or subject". SwisterTwister   talk  08:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep for a variety of reasons, including most of the above sentiments. It meets GNG, and the sources from Business Insider, Forbes, Huffington Post, Chicago Tribune, and others are solid. He's clearly got notability beyond his region. Gargleafg (talk) 06:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The Forbes and Chicago Tribune pieces aren't "solid", they're vanity pieces submitted by non-journalist contributors. Sionk (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, I'll note that simply because a publication name is listed, is not meaning we automatically keep it, especially if the contents themselves are still unacceptable, as AfD established itself: Forbes is no longer a confident source given how PR-motivated and controlled it's become as has the HuffPost, therefore the leaves ChicagoTribune, which in itself was simply interviewed quotes, hence not independent or significant. If that's the best we can say "Hey, there's some republished PR, it's enough!" We're still damaging ourselves as an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister   talk  08:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - Because of the obvious controversy about this article and the fact the past DRV in fact allowed a new AfD, this should not be hastily closed, given it would simply still be a controversial article that was deleted before, and is in fact still in need of community input given the last DRV (which explicitly stated "if started, this will need AfD"). Hence also, "Speedy Keep" is not applicable when it was explicitly stated this would once again be at AfD, so here we are. SwisterTwister   talk  08:14, 12 November 2016 (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.