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. And regarding the question by the last poster, yes, if there was substantial discussion of the topic by independent reliable sources it'd be OK to have an article on them. See WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lack of independent in-depth coverage of Weinstein himself to establish notability. Weinstein is mentioned in routine coverage and has been interviewed as a company exec about the company he works for. The article was paid for by Studio71. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason as with Reza Izad's article. I personally think this article meets NBIO's basic requirements, with multiple journalistic articles offering coverage of Dan Weinstein's role within Studio71 (formerly known as CDS) bringing "a revolution of MCN networks".
In response to JJJMC89's argument that "Weinstein has received coverage related to his notable company but not in-depth about himself outside of the many detailed interviews", I think NBIO's basic requirements clearly address the concern: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability."; lengthy interviews and articles discussing the industry-changing impacts of Weinstein's business decisions & talent management cannot possibly be considered "trivial". (Disclosure, I was asked by a Studio71 contractor to try to cleanup the article, but I would not compromise my integrity and defend any article which I do not believe honestly meets Wikipedia's inclusion policies.) Ben · Salvidrim! (PAID) 23:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After further researching the topic, I think that while there is definitely some level of notability, coverage in a standalone article might not warranted for the moment. I think a redirect to Studio71#History is the best solution for now. Ben · Salvidrim! (PAID) 02:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete executive producers are just not inherently notable, and nothing else shows notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just my 2¢, but I don't think anyone claimed "executive producers are inherently notable" -- you're absolutely right that they aren't. I think in this case the sources support notability not on the "executive producer" role you mention, but discuss more his successes as (1) talent manager & content officer, personally growing several successful brands and artists and (2) founding & developing The Collective > CDS > Studio71, a series of organizations which have been discussed as near-revolutionary leaders in the MCN industry (sources' words, not mine). Ben · Salvidrim! (PAID) 04:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note above about being paid to clean up the article and this one. To fully clarify, are you are being paid, or do you expect to be paid, for these edits, in this AfD? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not specifically for this AfD, but the original request was "what can you do to get these maintenance tags off the article?" and such maintenance clean up is desirable overall for the project -- my solution was (1) get the original UPE creator to disclose correctly and (2) send the articles back to AfC to be reviewed, and if found acceptable, approved to mainspace without tags. I suppose my participation in this AfD can be considered part of the "article maintenance tag cleanup" effort, since they will either be kept at AfD (thus tags off) or not (in which case I suppose the titles will make acceptable redirects to Studio71#History). Ben · Salvidrim! (PAID) 19:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so that is a "yes". Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because - and only because - you have mentioned here that you put the article through AfC, I will note here the following. You have disclosed that this company is a client of Mister Wiki, who is in turn paying you (disclosure). The editor who accepted this, specifically citing the AfC process, also does paid editing through Mister Wiki, per their disclosure. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSPAM, written in contemporary marketing speak. The author is actually quite good at writing a marketing bio that slips through our G11 criteria because it isn't written in 1960s adspeak (which is what we all but require for that.) This is the perfect example of why deletion based on NOTSPAM at AfDs is necessary: anyone with any background in current marketing practices could spot the techniques used here. This is clearly spam being used to promote the subject for pay. The question of notability is not even relevant, nor is the disclosure in compliance with the terms of use: the TOU is not a license to ignore local policies. It is the bare minimum to be able to click the save button, just as not uploading copyright violations is. After they have been met, we can begin assess based on local policy. Unfortunately, this fails our local policy on promotion. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you're referring to sentences like these: Weinstein helped grow the Annoying Orange as a brand and alongside Reza Izad and Michael Green, grew numerous other client's channels including Fred, iJustine and Shane Dawson. and Weinstein’s talent instincts have resulted in Studio71 joining forces with massively successful entertainment icons like Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, Shay Mitchell, and Mayim Bialik. as contemporary marketing speak? Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 16:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Current marketing professionals know that language like that is much more effective at promoting someone than He's the best ever. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The two sources that have anything on him are obviously not useful for notability. Some of the sources in the article don't even mention him. Searching doesn't reveal anything. Non-notable. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 17:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Weinstein himself is not given enough in-depth coverage by the article's sources. Per WP:NOTINHERITED, Weinstein is not notable solely for the sake of being connected to notable figures.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In all the sources, I can't find one where he is dedicated full paragraph to discuss his life and what he's up to. Lacks significant coverage fails WP:GNG and the sources are questionable, none of them is established reputable media house or website. —Ammarpad (talk) 05:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note Hello all, Jacob here from Mister Wiki. Studio71 is a paid client of mine. I understand the justification of deleting this article. Do you think if Dan had more substantial coverage in 2+ notable independent sources, this page would have a better chance at passing? Thank you! JacobMW (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2017 (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.