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 both. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Sugars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

ActionCOACH (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Was proposed for deletion yesterday, but the tag was removed and so it is coming to AfD. The reason listed was: "Written like an advert, no credible notability established, mainly relying on primary sources." Orderinchaos 03:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep. It's spammy, but not unrescuably so, and there are a smattering of indepedent sources availible. I would not miss this article terribly so, but it does seem to brush up against the WP:N baseline. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This is esentially a ghostwritten autobiography. There are significant WP:COI issues at hand, as noted at Talk:Brad Sugars#Link to the original request for a quote to develop this artice. Editors wanting to comment here might also want to take a look at what's been happening at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paid editing. Dekimasuよ! 04:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vanity page, not much in the way of reliable sources. Rebecca (talk) 07:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Concerning to see the conflict of interest tag and is he really that notable? I for one have never heard of him. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 07:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, although "I've not heard of him" is not a valid reason, Aaroncrick. This falls down on WP:N alone, the majority of the sources are primary, and the third party coverage is not significant. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, Darrenhusted I was just stating that I've never heard of him so I can see how it should fail WP:N. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 08:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but it is an argument to avoid. For future reference, Aaron. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NN guy. No significant coverage in reliable sources unrelated to the subject. Hipocrite (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep Given the sources listed by Private Musings on the talk page, I think he may meet notability. I'm not happy about how we got to this stage, but at this point we should evaluate at the article's subject based on its potential for an article. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh. This Sydney Morning Herald article certainly makes an excellent case for notability, but that is the only reference/citation in the article that clearly does. (I have no idea whether the Stevie Awards are anything more than vanity things, and no inclination to spend the time puzzling that out.) The undisclosed COI problem with User:Zithan certainly is a source of unhappiness here, since the editor seems to be doing much of this - for example, Ken Underwood, Oil Gone Easy, and Broncolor. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If you know there are COI problems on other articles (I was not aware of these cases, and I don't know if what you said was based on evidence or your interpretation of a look through contribution histories), please add the COI template to them. Dekimasuよ! 03:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's nothing more than business PR. Minor business figures generally aren't notable just because some business trade publications have mentioned them. See WP:NOT, several provisions of which this article violates. What would be required to properly keep it would be a more public controversy or other reliable-source coverage cited, e.g. to the general media.
  ..... The way in which this article appears to have gotten started may be seen here, where a solicitation offering compensation to develop a WP article was put out in early May 2009. When was this article started? you guessed it: 19 May 2009. Whether there's a connection or not I have no way of knowing for sure. But either way, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:NOTMYSPACE, etc. are policy, and this article quite plainly violates them. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't meet WP:BIO and is spammy Nick-D (talk) 05:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also delete ActionCOACH as there's no indication that it meets WP:ORG and is also spammy. Nick-D (talk) 23:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and conclusion - As a rule, I dislike paid articles like this; they tend to be spammy, "puff" and basically there for PR purposes; they often feel untrustworthy as contributions until carefully checked by neutral editors whether they are of any genuine value. That said we judge articles by their content not their motives, and having checked, the "Stevie" awards do seem genuine enough as serious recognized awards. If some of the other awards are legitimately valuable and not "some magazine's own award scheme that shows little more than that magazine's opinion", then I would say ActionCoach would probably be notable as a business. But the article should be stripped of any "puff". As for the CEO himself, is he notable outside the context of that business? Probably not. A successful businessman and author, ten a penny. Even if he won a single award, I'm not sure that makes him as a person notable - there are not so many awards in the world where winning them automatically makes a person of historical note. I'd want strong evidence and bona fide coverage (not just PR pieces) that indicate he is notable. Conclusion:

• Move ActionCoach-related content to an article on that business, remove "puff" and PR ruthlessly if any, and redirect the article on its CEO to the business' article. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, that's a reasonable way to handle this... Would just take someone with the desire to follow thru... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although ActionCoach itself is not really notable. So if all the business related information were moved to that article it would also fail WP:N and end up being deleted as well. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable self-promotion Murtoa (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This article has been mentioned in The Register (yes, again ...): http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/12/wikipedia_cash_for_spam/
• Delete Brad Sugars per FT2 JN466 15:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both A stand on such puff pieces must be taken on WP, and this is a good place to start. WP should not become a repository for everyone who has flacks, or submits his name to vanity "Who's Who"s. "Fast Money Motormouth" to me does not assert notability at all. Collect (talk) 11:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable and reads like an ad. Laurent (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. Heavy self-promotion. A Google News search turns up many press releases [1] but few stories, although he did get one solid hit in the Irish Times. --John Nagle (talk) 05:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zithan (talk · contribs), who created most of the article in its present form, has been desysopped and blocked by ArbCom for failure to reply to queries about his paid editing. See [2]. --John Nagle (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete For the reasons stated by the nominator. Everything about the article looks liked a biased advertisement by his P.R. firm—all the way down to that splendid 14.1 megapixel Brad Sugars.jpg portrait of him (you can count the whiskers in his mustache that could have been shaved closer), which was “kindly” released under a Creative Commons license. Be sure to delete the photo along with the article. And ban any articles on this guy for the next three years, even if they are unbiased; he’s simply not notable enough. Greg L (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. Or Move to an article titled Brad Sugars - Wikipedia controversy and revise accordingly so that it properly conveys a notable story about a “business coach” running afoul with Wikipedia and its policies about treating an online encyclopedia like it is a personal print shop. Now that would be interesting reading. But a story only about yet another guy who builds trust and bonding amongst managers by having them fall backwards into his peers’ arms, or chant “I’m unique, and—gosh darn it—I add value to my team”, or whatever else this guy does, is not encyclopedic in the least. ^(Disclaimer) Greg L (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clear PR Dy yol (talk) 10:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Vanity article, subject not notable. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the original article and comments I made above, there is a chance that ActionCOACH might be notable. I have created an article based on the original at ActionCOACH and tagged it with {{refimprove}} and {{COI}} (due to its origins), and listed it here with Sugars' article, for communal review. I have no personal interest in either article; the sole question is whether if drafted, the company is considered notable. It may be - the Stevie awards appear to be non-trivial and legitimate and it has won other awards too. See my comment above. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Update: To my somewhat surprise, we appear to be discussing a $220m annual revenue business. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep ActionCOACH, and merge Brad Sugars into it. The company appears notable, the CEO not particularly so. And I'm always wary of biographical articles that include the word "entrepreneur" in the first sentence. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

And then delete Brad Sugars? Darrenhusted (talk) 11:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typically it would be redirected to ActionCOACH. Computerjoe's talk 12:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep ActionCOACH, merge Brad Sugars. The company appears to be notable, Sugars has some notability and possibly enough for WP:BIO, but I don't think a separate article is needed. snigbrook (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• FT2 His solution sums up my thinking. rootology (C)(T) 14:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ActionCOACH, redirect Brad Sugars to it Changed my !vote from above. Thanks to FT2 for working out a unique solution that is probably the best way to handle this. Dig it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per FT2. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per FT2. -- billinghurst (talk) 06:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As non notable and self promotion.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. Nothing but business hype. The "$220m annual revenue" FT2 mentions is from the company's press kit here-- not a reliable source. And it's a franchise operation, so its "estimate" of its own annual revenues is doubtlessly a claim based on what it publicly asserts its franchises gross worldwide. There's no evidence to back up this claim. Somebody show me the reliable 3rd-party sources about this infomercial-driven franchise operation, per WP:PSTS, and maybe I'll change my present position on this. But on the evidence presented thus far, it's a poster child for WP:NOT. ... Kenosis (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete even taking out the PR puff about Sugars all we are left with is PR puff about ActionCoach (what is with the uppercase OACH? does it stand for something?). Most sources stem from the company or are reproductions of the PR material. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's now being reported that the "Stevies" are paid for as well. Suggest that we get rid of this mess entirely, since it is still based on COI reporting. Dekimasuよ! 12:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is basically advertising. I've tried to find some reliable sources about ActionCoach, and I'm just finding hype. They're a big user of PR Newswire and FranchiseWire, and Google News is full of their hype, but they get only a few brief mentions from reliable sources. The article doesn't even mention that ActionCoach is a form of multi-level marketing - there are "Master Licensees" who sign up other franchisees. I've found anonymous complaints that, as with most MLM, most franchisees lose money. But nothing solid, even on the criticism side. Once you ignore all the stuff ActionCoach itself generates, there's not much information available. --John Nagle (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - I have in fact heard of this guy as it goes, but I've also heard about a tree in the woods next to my house. notability is dubious at best. Pedro :  Chat  19:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but Rewrite - as one article about ActionCoach, unless better third-party reliable secondary sources can be found that give Brad Sugars significant coverage. --Mysidia (talk)
• Eliminate both of them as weakly-sourced articles about non-notable subjects. Being a paid article is also a worry. Alexius08 (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nominator nailed the salient nuances here on the head. If companies want P.R. on themselves, they can admire their own web pages. Greg L (talk) 04:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both marketing/advertising crap. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. I see some good points raised above by Kenosis (talk · contribs), Darrenhusted (talk · contribs), and Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs). Lots of spam / advertising going on in these pages. Cirt (talk) 08:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clear PR Dy yol (talk) 10:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Spam for a non-notable company. Laurent (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in case my rationale above was not sufficiently clear as it applies to each and every article here. Collect (talk) 12:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. Not seeing any notability at all in either case. Rebecca (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both ACtion COACH doesnt have (much) indept refs YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 00:47, 17 June 2009 (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.