Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zack Friedman


 * 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. Tone 15:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Zack Friedman

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This page reads like a resume. It is rarely neutral, and feels exactly like one of the many articles for creation that gets declined every day. It was created in 2012 when, I assume, the standard of "qualifying for a Wikipedia article" was less enforced. Zack Friedman does NOT show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The sources are all from organizations affiliated with Zack Friedman, or are simply proof of his existence. He just doesn't meet the standard of "notable." Bizmilk3 (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC) — Bizmilk3 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment respectably, this is a fake account named Bizmilk that created this deletion page. This person is personally attacking Mr. Friedman with a personal agenda and stating false statements. After updating this article, I noticed that this author says untrue things like not having reliable secondary sources when there are many like cnbc, bloomberg and many others. Just sayin.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  11:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  11:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  11:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment the article definitely over-relies on primary sources. One source which looked promising was the last reference, but it's dead, hopefully someone can rescue it. I did a quick Google search, I couldn't find much. Hmanburg (talk) 13:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   14:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Advertisement. Should this businessman eventually be notable per independent sources, the text as is is so non-neutral, best delete for now. Leo Breman (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Pure WP:PROMO material better suited for his LinkedIn profile. KidAd   talk  21:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree this doesn't fit current standards. It doesn't seem like neutral information/sources even exist User:lex9000 2:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT and WP:NOTRESUME. In theory, giving a TEDx talk can count towards notability, but is not automatic. Bearian (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Rescued some sources here and fixed the broken link. Removed some biographical info and any language that didnt appear neutral. Sources now include Newsweek, CNBC, Business Insider, Jewish Business News plus Success Magazine and Publishers Weekly. None of these sources appear to be linked to him in any way, and are therefore independent, major secondary sources. comment added by Terjar12 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC) — Terjar12
 * Comment respectably, this is a fake account named Bizmilk that created this deletion page. This person is personally attacking Mr. Friedman with a personal agenda and stating false statements. After updating this article, I noticed that this author says untrue things like not having reliable secondary sources when there are many like cnbc, bloomberg and many others. Just sayin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terjar12 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. This is a guy who has gone to school and had a few jobs, just like millions of other people.  Being profiled a couple times and writing op-eds is not notable.  FalconK (talk) 04:18, 17 December 2020 (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.