Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John D. Bernard

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. This has been open since March 28, which seems long enough, especially as it is now attracting a sock farm and a bunch of SPA IPs. Once the sock/SPA !votes are discounted, the consensus is almost unanimous based largely on the inadequacy of the sources used. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John D. Bernard

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not seeing enough to pass WP:GNG. Only one source might amount to WP:SIGCOV, the Marketing Week that I cannot see without joining. Edwardx (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is suffering badly from a mix of link rot and weak/promotional sources, but the subject has won awards or been included on major figures lists by all the major marketing trade press, including a very recent profile (you can view by just clicking to close the registration pop-up). Needs clean-up and updating, but seems on the top end of notablity within marketing. Mattyjohn (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:GNG. Where is the general, wider notability, beyond the sporadic mentions in trade media? (Ad media, at that.) I half-jokingly accept the subject's own verdict about "his children’s births, his wedding, [and] Luton Town’s 1988 Cup win" being more important. We have WP:TOOSOON doing overtime in entrepreneur-related articles. -The Gnome (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, and the whole thing is written promotionally, like a resume. The article is a poorly sourced list of accomplishments for himself. Elassint ^Hi 19:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject is at the top end of notability within marketing. The subject was in the news in March 2018 for receiving an Honorary Doctorate that will take place in July 2018. [1]. Just needs links cleaned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accu1987 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC) — Accu1987 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Ubuntuforum (talk • contribs). [reply]

Comment New editor, only edit has been to vote on this AfD. Likely sockpuppet. Edwardx (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is more than enough evidence for this subject to pass WP:GNG. The subject, in addition to what is written above, being awarded a Doctorate in 2018, has enough verifiable, objective evidence and significant attention from independent sources. From a quick search online I can see the subject is a judge of marketing excellence in the UK from an article published today, 18th April 2018. The subject has been consistently in the news around the marketing industry for over a decade and thus is not a mere short-term interest. Ubuntuforum 17:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC) — Ubuntuforum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment 12/13 of Ubuntuforum's edits have been to the article or this AfD. On User talk:Ubuntuforum in 2012, they state: "Yes, I know John personally, we work in the same industry and I have known him for almost 5 years." Edwardx (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This passes WP:GNG. High notability within the marketing field based on suitable sources and the subject demonstrates significant recognition within the marketing industry. The subject has been updated to correct broken URLs, and also updated to include coverage announcing the subject's election as a Trustee to the world's leading marketing body in November 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:8C10:B500:1074:D0B5:C839:89CA (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC) — 2A02:C7F:8C10:B500:1074:D0B5:C839:89CA (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (IP is checkuser blocked - Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. This is a field where we have to be particularly careful; articles about people whose profwesssion is promotion atend to be just extensions of their own promotionalism about their own profession. In this particular case, the doctorate is just an alumni award. DGG ( talk ) 21:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This passes WP:GNG. DGG you raise a good point but do we then delete all subjects who work in advertising, marketing or promotions?! This would include https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Cunningham as an individual; or the subjects at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_marketing_people. We need to be mindful to not tarnish a group or individual due to the nature of their work. I also must apologise, as the subject was awarded an 'Honorary' doctorate alongside a Nobel prize winner, given to 'Individuals who have been deemed worthy of special recognition for contributions to society'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctorate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubuntuforum (talk • contribs) 22:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are only allowed to vote once. Edwardx (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: This subject clearly passes WP:GNG. The subject has been newsworthy since 2006 including producing a global innovation in the advertising industry that is used today. The subject continues with high notability in the industry with Coverage in 2017 and 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodw (talk • contribs) 10:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC) — Goodw (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Ubuntuforum (talk • contribs). [reply]

1 to the point above that is crossed out. Subjects who work in advertising, marketing or promotions should not be excluded from wikipedia because they work in a promotional job. We need to be mindful to not tarnish a group or individual due to the nature of their work. To also 1 the point above, the subject was awarded an 'Honorary' doctorate alongside a Nobel prize winner, given to 'Individuals who have been deemed worthy of special recognition for contributions to society'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctorate. This subject has high notability within that industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodw (talk • contribs) 10:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Comment User has only six edits, all either to the article or this AfD. Edwardx (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Multiple sources to pass WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. High notability. Suggest changing the subject title to john Bernard instead of John d. Bernard . A search for John Bernard marketing or John Bernard Firefox highlights high notability imho . I disagree this is written promotionally, its a subject written chronologically in the most part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apcddx (talk • contribs) 12:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC) — Apcddx (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Ubuntuforum (talk • contribs). [reply]

Comment New user, only edit has been to vote on this AfD. Likely sockpuppet. Edwardx (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: (Yes, I know I'm a new account and only edited few things besides my own sandbox, but I have an argument). Ok. The article may have been TOOSOON when it was created 10 years ago, but I don't think it's too soon right now. The subject of the article has been head of marketing in several very important and global companies. Besides that, he was the subject of several articles in important media outlets in the marketing field. I think he's important and noteworthy enough for an article on Wikipedia. I don't think the tone of the article is promotional. The article may need a restructuration, but honestly, I don't think it should be deleted.--EEmerique (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC) — EEmerique (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of SirEdimon (talk • contribs). [reply]
Delete. per DGG. I am not opposed to a future page if sourcing is better, but this was done badly from the beginning and wreaks of conflict of interest editing. Clearly paid for cruft without adherence to our rules. 24.114.23.54 (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please clarify. Is the article being deleted for lack of notability or because the article is in bad shape?--EEmerique (talk) 04:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is all explained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Right at the top, "Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate: For problems that do not require deletion, including ... articles needing improvement ... be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." I nominated this article because after having examined the article sourcing and searching the Internet, it was my view that Bernard had not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" , see WP:SIGCOV for more. Edwardx (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. But the article's subject seems notable. The article is not in good shape. Perhaps, it would need a restructuration, but not deletion. The article's tone is not promotional, seems neutral to me. He was covered by BBC, Marketing Week, Tech Times and others important media outlets in the marketing and business field. He has been in head positions in several important companies. I really don't understand why he's not notable.--EEmerique (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This individual has received coverage from the BBC including with an interview [2] half way down the page which is a reliable source and independent of any subject; he has been in the Mobile Phone industry trade press for over 10 years (granted this is trade press but he's notable in this field); has been featured in national marketing coverage; and seems to be an innovator in his field with new technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.242.164.178 (talk) 11:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC) — 87.242.164.178 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP - Bernard has sig. coverage from reliable sources. This includes in Fortune magazine referring to changes in Strategy to the browser Firefox from 2016 [3] and he’s listed on Bloomberg [4]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.232.57 (talk) 12:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC) — 85.255.232.57 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Septrillion (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - all the above accounts who voted "Keep" except the first one have been blocked as socks. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ubuntuforum. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 02:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP hello everyone! First time Commenting on Wikipedia, came across this page from a Google search on John who as we're researching as a speaker for one of our tech events. Ignore this vote if not applicable as a first time poster but we certainly think John is worthy of inclusion given his achievements in tech. Thanks! PS also updated the profile as he is not dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.252.128.78 (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: sorry, everyone, should have qualified, updated the profile based on very recent activity on the @thejohnbernard verified Twitter handle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.252.128.78 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not only waded through all the refs (ugh!) but also reviewed the history and was astounded how much of this article was written by the same sock farm as turned up to vote! It seriously looks like a single paid editor. Notwithstanding that egregious deceit, it still fails WP:GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:29, 21 April 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.