Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chase Ergen

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. If an editor actually wants to work on this article in Draft space, they can contact me or [WP:REFUND}] but I'm not going to park it there for 6 months. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:17, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Ergen

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Semi-advertorialized (see "public image" section in particular) WP:BLP of a businessperson, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for businesspeople. As always, people in business are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have jobs, and have to be shown to pass certain specific criteria supported by WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them in reliable sources -- but this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, such as "staff" profiles or press releases self-published by his own companies and/or directory entries, with very little GNG-worthy coverage shown at all.
Further, this has already been moved into draftspace once for lacking GNG-worthy sourcing, only to get moved back into articlespace by its own creator two days later -- so while moving it back into draftspace a second time is obviously possible, I'm not going to do that without wider discussion about whether it's warranted in this case or not. Bearcat (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Finance, Politics, and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:V. This person is not notable, and we can't verify notability if all the sources are tied somehow to him. Bearian (talk) 09:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dropped a lot of the extra sources. I think notability is warranted but I had to drop the majority of the article to find it. Dflovett (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Obvious spam, I suspect paid - David Gerard (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Move back to Draftspace. I see enough notability in my own googling of "Chase Ergen" and exploration of related topics, but I don't think the current article properly conveys it. I am going to go in and trim down some of this, add in more reliable sources. Dflovett (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I look deeper, there are lots of issues with the current references setup. Will be attempting to clean those up as well. Dflovett (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Likely COI/paid editing. Edwardx (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on all the signs of COI/paid editing but now that I've trimmed it down and dropped a lot of the junk sources, I think it doesn't fail WP:GNG anymore. I've also neutralized the tone, or at least I consider it to be neutralized. Dflovett (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on Dflovett's changes?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to Draftspace or Keep. From my POV, I've made significant improvements but this still might belong back in the draftspace for now.Dflovett (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Tbh, I've looked more at some of the references I left in there and I think Move back to draftspace or Delete are the only paths forward. Keep just isn't viable as of now.~~ Dflovett (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:16, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Move back to Draftspace or Keep. I've flip-flopped on this a few times, but at this point I think it makes sense to do one of these two options. Full-blown "Delete" does not seem necessary at this point but I can see an argument for "Move back to Draftspace".

Dflovett (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I propose Move to Draftspace as soon as possible, just to resolve this and attempt a consensus, seeing as the conversation seems to have totally stalled out. Tagging Bearcat (talk), since that was an idea you originally floated. Also tagging Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} and asilvering (talk) since you both relisted this recently. Dflovett (talk) 13:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dflovett, you've made four bolded !votes in this discussion - please strike the duplicates. -- asilvering (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, will do. Dflovett (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2025 (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.