The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Mike Smith (businessman) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Page has been in and out of mainspace so many times it is dizzy. Can we get a decision on where it belongs here? Legacypac (talk) 10:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking ...

6 references.

I wish there was a hard requirement for promotional type articles, that the onus is on the author to list 2-3 sources as the best notability attesting sources (independent third party reliable reputable secondary source making direct commentary on the topic, definitely no less than two sentences). Why does no one agree with me?

Going through them one by one:

• Ref 1. Interview. Interveiws are not third party sources. Does not count for demonstrating Wikipedia-notability
• Ref 2. "6 New Business Books to Read in November"
  Mike Smith is Vice President of Revenue Platforms and Operations at Hearst Magazines Digital Media and General Manager of Core Audience at Hearst Corporation. He is the former President of Forbes.com and CDO of Forbes Media. His new book, Targeted, takes a close look at how social media is changing advertising, the implications of paid-search advertising, how real-time bidding works, how big data is changing advertising, and more

Describes author and title of a recommended book. Maybe, a little bit.

• Ref 3. http://www6.njit.edu/features/alumni/michael-smith.php Profiling this alumni. My reading of the article is that it was made with the subject, and therefore is not independent.
• Ref 4. https://gigaom.com/2011/03/16/419-forbes-promotes-cto-michael-smith-as-digital-head/ Media release, company announcing its new didital head. Not an independent source.
• Ref 5. https://www.adweek.com/fishbowlny/mike-smith-leaves-forbes-for-hearst-magazines/88035/ Behind a paywall, but the url "adweek" is a red flag for promotion, and it looks to me to be a press release.
• Ref 6. https://www.crainsnewyork.com/resources/executive-moves/details/3/2912352 A press release, "SPECIAL PROMOTIONS SECTION", "PEOPLE ON THE MOVE":

Mike Smith, Hearst Magazines Digital Media

New Hire

Vice President of Revenue Platforms and Operations

Classification: Corporate Mgmt - Chrmn, CEO, CFO, Owner, Pres, VP, Other Exec

That's it. There is no indepth secondary source content.

I'm striking all but #2, which I am not sure about. They need two. "Mike Smith"? A very common name, hard work to google and filter.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: promotionalism only on a nn businessman. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ordinary corporate executive. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 18:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:PROMOTION. Independent reputable others have not already written about this person. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete also the redirect Draft:Mike Smith (Hearst Media). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - In my opinion, if a page is either draftified twice or promoted to mainspace twice without a discussion having closure, there has been move-warring. That is, I take a strict view of being against move-warring. If an article has already been draftified once, and is back in article space, and is still not ready for article space, it is time for Articles for Deletion. This page has been draftified four times, which is too much, and since it is now in draft space, I agree that it is time to deal with it. The subject may be marginally notable or may not be notable. However, the page is the work of a paid editor, and like most work of paid editors is of low quality. (Paid editors are normally worth less than you pay for them.) Therefore:
• Delete Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.