Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Springer

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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Springer

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

Non-notable financial advisor. Prod notice removed. He has been quoted or interviewed in some media but is not widely cited by peers. He does not seem to be regarded as an important figure in finance. Fails WP:BIO and especially WP:AUTHOR. I can't find any notable reference on the subject himself either. Delete. Edcolins (talk) 11:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the list of references looks impressive on first glance, but in almost every case it's just an example of him giving a piece of soundbite financial commentary to a news organisation in an article about something else entirely. I really can't see any actual substantial coverage of him, or his company, evidenced here. Hence, it fails the primary requirement of WP:BIO - trivial mentions, not substantial coverage. ~ mazca ^talk 12:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—appears to meet the general notability guideline, given that Mr Springer seems to be a go-to-guy for numerous influential news outlets. ╟─Treasury Tag►presiding officer─╢ 12:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One aspect of the general guideline is that the topic itself should have received significant coverage. ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail..." I haven't seen any source addressing the subject directly in detail, so far. --Edcolins (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see he is quoted a lot, but I don't see reliable sources writing about him. Being quoted a lot by the press only means that his name is now int he contact list of news producers and reporters as somebody who can provide a quote or a soundbite on demand. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources aren't interviewing Mr. Springer about himself, what he is known for is his opinions in the financial world. "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity... Mr. Springer's contributions appear on international news outlets. I found that Mr. Springer contributed to over 70 publications so far this year, not including his television appearances. JScottWL (talk) 11:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As mentioned above, while this person seems to get a lot of mentions in passing, there doesn't seem to be any significant coverage, which means it falls short of satisfying the WP:BIO notability criteria. --DAJF (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

question I am simply unsure of the manner in which being frequently interviewed as one of the sources for news programs or articles translates as being notable, and to what extent such interviews are acceptable 3rd party sources for the GNG. True, some notable people are sometimes frequently interviewed. I am not sure it runs the other way around, though, People can be picked for such interviews because they are cooperative, telegenic, well-spoken, and give good quotations--as well as being actually important. I think it would be relevant if the interviews were significant, not just being quoted as part of a story, but only one of the cited ones is [1]. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 22 November 2010 (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.