Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Mitchell (businessman)

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.--Húsönd 22:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Mitchell (businessman)

Scott Mitchell (businessman) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

No independent, reliable sources verify any of the assertions in the article except that Mitchell is the CEO of Think Partnership - which is adequately covered in Think's article. Despite months of editors attempting to make this article worthy of inclusion, appropriate sources for information have not been found. Because of the lack of coverage of Mitchell by independent sources, he does not yet appear to merit an article in Wikipedia. Siobhan Hansa 17:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I would almost think of this as an ego-boosting self-advertisement. It is not sourced well and there are no independent sources. Authors of this article spammed other articles to link to this one including changing links on the Scott Mitchell footballer page to point to here. Scott Mitchell's son even created a wiki page for himself at one point which was speedily deleted. Even the Think Partnership wiki seems to have been created just to list his name. Does not meet criteria.RedBirdI55 17:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete. I think Forbes is a reliable source who has verified the information. Also, almost all the information was verified in SEC filings. My read of this situation is that RedBird (the name of the mascot for Illinois State University) was offended when someone tried to add Mitchel; and several other CEO's listed on ISU's own noteable alumni business page, to the notable alumni list. He constantly removed Mitchell and all Alumni despite the fact that arean football quarterbacks were left on. I think that this whole thing is quite rediculous. When I look back at the history, I see many reliable sources were removed. This is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be about!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.83.78.67 (talk)
  • Comment. Your "READ" of the situation is wrong and doesn't go with AGF. My reasons for wanting the deletion are stated above. There are others who would like this deleted as well if you look at the discussion of the main article. Once again I think this article is self-promotional and the Think article covers all that is needed. ISU was just one of the many articles that were spammed to promote this one. RedBirdI55 19:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete. I've looked back at the deleted references and I do think that (1) sources like Forbes, Bloomberg, and the United States Security and Exchange Commission are all very valid sources and (2) the CEO of a large public company traded on the American Stock Exchange and the founder of several businesses in the United States worth hundreds of millions of dollars is notable. I strongly believe that this article should be cleaned up, proper references added back, and should not be deleted. There does seem to be some evidence that this article was vandalized. There are many other biographies on Wikipedia of much less notable people that should be looked into. This vandalism is quite preposterous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.172.203.235 (talk)
  • Comment the deleted references have not been to appropriate content for the assertions they are backing up - the forbes link was to a profile which contained a part of a press release from Think Partnership and some financial details on the company. It was not a non-trivial piece written by someone independent of the subject. So far, despite months of requests, no sources have been found that meet this standard (which is our regular standard for inclusion). The SEC link may be useful, but at the moment it's just a link to a list of dozens of financial statements. It's not clear what facts it backs up. This has been detailed on the article talk page, but no response there from anyone who thinks this article is worth keeping. --Siobhan Hansa 23:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete ::This is quite ridiculous. I did research on this before and his name is all over the place. In the world of online advertising and internet businesses, he is very notable. This article should be cleaned up and not removed. This is vandalism and I'm definitely going to complain about it. Here are some links from some very simple research. They back up all of the information in this article and are from very reputable, independent sources like Reuters, Barons, Microsoft, and the SEC. This is the most blatant display of this I have ever seen. Why don't you guys go after the actors that have had one extra spot on one commercial ten years ago on here? Why do you have anything against businesses? Certainly, they can be notable enough for inclusion?

Reuters: http://www.investor.reuters.wallst.com/stocks/OfficerProfile.asp?rpc=66&symbol=THK&ID=671940 United States Security and Exchange Commission: http://www.secinfo.com/d11MXs.v1866.d.htm http://sec.edgar-online.com/1999/06/15/10/0001047469-99-024112/Section13.asp Barrons: http://www.smartmoney.com/barrons/briefingbooks/index.cfm?page=executives&origin=wsj&mod=2_0471&symbol=THK&news-symbol=THK Entrepreneurial Legends: http://www.topbusinessentrepreneurs.com/profiles/scott-mitchell.html IT World Magazine: http://www.itworld.com/App/441/CWD010402STO59095/ Interactive Press Release: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2000_May_15/ai_62082202 Internet News Magazine: http://www.internetnews.com/ec-news/article.php/519771 Steve Balmer (President of Microsoft) and Mitchell Speech Transcript: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/steve/09-26enterprise2000.mspx Forbes: http://www.forbes-global.com/finance/mktguideapps/personinfo/FromPersonIdPersonTearsheet.jhtml?passedPersonId=894058

Staceywhite 02:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• • comment As I have also noted on the article talk page these links do not establish notability for Mitchell, and most of them are reprints of press release information, rather than independently researched articles about Mitchell. These are the same assertions as appear to have been made for months, and requests for better sources have not produced anything worthwhile. --Siobhan Hansa 04:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Just as a side note I think that some of these "don't deletes" are from this small circle of friends who promote this article or maybe just 2 people in general. I agree with Wahkeenah in that some of these accounts are used solely to promote this article. Not sure if the person who redirected a link for the quarter back Scott Mitchell in World Bowl II to point to this page but I think things like that show self-promotion. [1] I don't know what the rules are for situations like this but I thought it might be worth a mention since I find it strange that they used similar prose such as "Don't Delete" instead of the usual "Keep". Believe it or not I have nothing against Scott as well.RedBirdI55 12:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. as per norm. Advertising with single purpose accounts. Jazzy joe 02:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per G11 and so tagged. So full of weasel words that no cleanup will do. Needs complete re-write from the ground up. Most of the links in the article are to statutory financial disclosures for listed companies (brief bio, earnings, stock options), and do not constitute "multiple non-trivial media coverage". The article, whilst not exactly plagiarised, is pretty obviously re-worked from the entrepreneurial legends bio. The other links are where he supplies quotes, and is not the primary subject. Ohconfucius 09:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Contested I feel that this deletion is unfounded and potentially vandalistic. The sources are from very reliable sources. The two people contending that this page is advertising assert that the sources are unreliable and not independent although I think the United States Security and Exchange Commission is a much more reliable source and has a much higher burden of proof to do fact checking than most sources on Wikipedia. I also think that this person is notable because of the size of businesses he has started, the significance he has in his field of online advertising, and the young age of his accomplishments. I firmly believe that much of the history of this page was “staged” or set up by one individual that doesn’t want this page included. Please carefully consider all of the facts before making your decision. I trust that an careful but informed independent third party evaluation of the facts will bring the right decision to effect. 213.83.78.67 09:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Please note that the above IP address has placed two entries here. Wahkeenah 11:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This has looked like blatant advertising from Day 1. I believe I am the one who first challenged it, when it showed up on the Illinois State University page in "Notable alumni". And when at least one editor pushing for retaining this article admits that Scott Mitchell is his former employer, it reinforces that viewpoint: "I just want to know what in the world you have against Scott Mitchell. He is my former employer of whom I have a tremendous amount of respect for. You keep removing him from the Notable Alumni section of the Illinois State University entry yet he is listed on by their cited website as a notable alumni. I would simply like an explaination." [sic] That was unsigned on my talk page, but it was posted by the red-linked User:Gregcox at 06:51, 15 November 2006. That user's sole purpose as a user seemed to be to add to the Scott Mitchell page as well as the page of the business he operates, called Think Partnership, on the 15th and 16th. You can read into that what you will. Also, it is worth pointing out that the likewise-red-linked User:Staceywhite's work since coming on board in September has been focused solely on this small set of articles, along with Orland Park, Illinois, for the purpose of listing Mitchell as a notable native. In looking back, this apparently started in April, with another single-purpose User:Greggborne. Entries in the interim were from various IP addresses. As I said elsewhere, I don't have anything specifically against Mr. Mitchell, I don't know who he is. Meanwhile, I could easily write about how wonderful Edward B. Rust, Jr. is to work for, but that would not be appropriate either. Speaking of which, I don't see Rust listed in IWU's "Notable Alumni". I don't know why that would be, but this much I can guarantee you: Rust's company is a lot larger than Mitchell's is. Wahkeenah 11:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I've been following this article for a while - all of the "references" just seem to be rehashed press releases. --Charlesknight 13:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom or Merge to the article for the company. Edison 19:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete this is a simple biography of a person has obviously made a significant contribution to his field. WIth all due respect to Edward B. Rust, Jr. and State Farm, he is not the founder and State Farm is a $2B business in a $4 TRILLION industry. I think this guy seems much more notable than most athletes and actors on Wikipedia as many of them have been in one season or in one movie. 207.145.28.2 04:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not at all obvious, beyond the company's own self-promotion statements. Meanwhile, one writeup said Mitchell had fewer than 100 employees in 1999. How many does he have now? What is his company's annual revenue at present? Wahkeenah 06:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Don't Delete To answer your question, according to SEC filings (which I do find reliable actually and feel the burden and standard for proof is much higher than reporters and media) the company has over 300 employees and will do over $100 million in revenue. His most recent previous company now has 28,000 employees.

• Don't Delete - Notable

However, the more significant test is whether Mitchell is notable. Given the series of interviews with him, the purchasing of almost $100 million of companies in 18 months in one reasonably small business segment, at a reasonably young age makes him notable especially to the industry that he is contributing to. I would agree with the fact that he is at least as notable as most of the athletes, actors, and authors on here. For businessmen, their companies are their contribution. In fact, many of the few businessmen that are on Wikipedia have almost all of their information that related to filings and press releases made by their company - see State Farm's Edward B. Rust, Jr as mentioned by a previous poster who has no references, no external links, resources, or news. At the end of the day, this is a well backed up article, with facts that are clearly backed up by valid SEC filings which have a very high burden of proof. Finally, there is independent literature on the subject in the case of several audio and reporter interviews as listed on resources.

• Don't Delete – No Advertising

The administrator Nae'blis removed the G11 from this article because there was no blatant advertising in it. There is actually no advertising at all and the article must be dealt with as a BLP (Biography of a Living Person). There are only facts stated in the biography article, these facts are all backed up by reliable independent sources (yes, I agree that the company submitted information to the SEC but the SEC just doesn't publish gibberish to the world investment community but are bound by a very high standard of accuracy and fact checking and people submit facts to reporters as well and reporters have a lower burden of proof for what they publish then the SEC), and this person is notable to his area. Further, this article must be dealt with as a BLP (Biography of a Living Person) and as such meets all of the requirements of (1) Verifiable (2) Neutral Point of View and (3) No original research. This Biography of a Notable Living Person is not doing anykind of adverting at all.

• Don't Delete – Verifiable

This article is one of the more verifiable Biographies of a Living Person that Wikipedia has. Every single fact in the biography is included in at least one of the supporting Resource articles. Those resource articles are being provided by the United States Security and Exchange Commission, Forbes, Barrons, Audio Interviews, all verify each and every fact in his biography.

• Don't Delete – Neutral Point of View

This article has been written with only third party facts drawn from many different sources. The facts are simply presented with no point of view applied.

• Don't Delete – No Original Research

There are no assumptions, assertions, perspectives or original research that has been applied to the biography.

207.145.28.2 08:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC) (note user just blocked for vandalism to this page Siobhan Hansa 11:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC))

• Comment Yes that's right the above SIX "Don't Deletes" were added by one person who was banned. Is this a case of sockpuppetry in the fact that all these anon ip's with a few edits use the term "Don't Delete"? RedBirdI55 05:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as above. Maybe it is time to block this guys ip. Also, I've never seen anyone vote dont delete before. --Banana04131 03:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I was just using the term "Don't Delete" because other people were. My apologies. Happy Thanksgiving! 207.145.28.2
  • Comment And all of them from your subnet. Wahkeenah 04:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep or Don't Delete or whatever: for what it is worth, this person is included in the latest Marqui's Who's Who as well as the Madison's Who's Who Registry of Executives and Professionals. The biographies are basically the same except for additional family information. Also, Wahkeenah, I don't really have a horse in this race...sort to speak... but your Edward B. Rust, Jr. does not have any references or external sources for any of the information in that article. I am uncertain exactly why this article is being considered for deletion. It is unclear to me what the criteria is. However, the controversy over the article on both sides of the debate should give the administrator pause and encourage careful consideration. 130.94.134.210 07:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I wonder how many of the sites about Mitchell used wikipedia as their source? In regard to Ed Rust, it looks to me like whoever wrote the article lifted a lot of it directly from the State Farm Insurance website, whose main page is [2] and whose page on Rust is [3]. State Farm is America's largest auto insurer and its largest Fire and Casualty insurer, and does a fair business in other areas such as Life Insurance. The price they pay for their size, of course, is that they get whacked pretty hard when hurricanes come along. The company has many thousands of employees across the nation, and it's clear Rust is a mover-and-shaker nationally. Whether Rust merits a page separate from the State Farm page, though, may be questionable... but if he doesn't deserve one, Mitchell certainly wouldn't. It also wouldn't be my place to write about Rust, since I come from a biased viewpoint. My complaint about Mitchell is not with him as such, it's that this article and several articles connected to it are vanity entries written either by him or by people who work or have worked for him, for the likely purpose of trying to expand his business, which is not the mission of wikipedia, as I understand it. What made it stand out, amongst the many one-time vanity entries that people have tried to post on the ISU page, is that it kept coming back, so I figured something was afoot with this one, and I was right. Oh, and by the way, to correct a slight mistake by one of Mitchell's proponents somewhere up the page, State Farm is not a TWO billion dollar business, it is a FIFTY billion dollar business, so it's a bit more of a dent in the insurance industry than that user thought. Wahkeenah 09:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment and Note to Closing Admin Please consider that many or most of the keep or "Don't Delete's" were from IPs who's only or first edits appear to be for this debate. There are many many many CEOs of much larger companies who do not have entries. This is an encyclopedia not a business directory. RedBirdI55 03:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I've read all of the policies and all of the information on this page. I am still unclear on what criteria this page should be deleted for. If there is a notable argument, I have yet to hear a compelling one and in fact this article's subject certainly meets the search engine test. If it is a source argument, I have found many substantive sources already listed in the article. If it is an original research argument, I do not see where the original research is. If there is an advertising or self promotion concern, I just do not see any advertising or self promotion, blatant or otherwise, anywhere in this article. I think that this article should fit into the guidelines and be subject to the requirements of any Biography of Living Persons as per Wikipedia standards and guidelines and as such meet all those criteria. 210.11.188.11 06:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin This comment actually left by 207.67.145.205 (talk). [4] --Siobhan Hansa 13:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Further Research: Easily meets WP:BIO as he was profiled/interviewed frequently as shown in his CampaignStreet interview, his SpotLight on DMConfidential interview, and his Wall Street Interview. We also must take into account WP:BIAS as there seems to be some biased here against certain businesses and sertain CEO's. Subject of multiple non-trivial published works just do a Google for his name. This whole debate is a perfect example of systemic bias in my opinion. AFD is not a means to solicit for sources. That is what the {sources} tag is for. However, I see plenty of sources. Also we now know for sure that he is mentioned in several Who's Who books. Searches for his own books on internet development and marketing on [Amazon.com] and [BarnesAndNoble.com] returned his books in stock that are regularly sold by these major book retailers. His first business (Tunes.com) was sold for $180 million and owned RollingStone Magazine which is notable to the music industry. His second company is HSN.com and is a $500 million ecommerce site notable to television retailing and ecommerce and his third business is one of the 5 largest online advertising agencies and is publicly traded on the AMEX. Sorry for the brain dump here. Just confused as to why we are debating this in the first place. 207.67.145.205 12:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Note for closing admin this comment was actually left by 207.67.145.205 (talk) who left the comment above it just an hour before. [5] --Siobhan Hansa 13:32, 25 November 2006 (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.