Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Pirillo (3rd nomination)

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 no consensus. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Pirillo

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

Now, we've clearly changed since 2010 especially the specificity of articles and what they contain, and this case, this is simply a business listing, regardless if it's not as overblown as the others, because both the information and sources themselves are trivial and unconvincing and only something suitable for his own company website bio, not here. Also, the history explains itself that there's still nothing convincing for independent notability and substance, and my own searches are finding nothing but either his own authored articles or PR, and that says enough. As it is, the 2010 AfD itself had potential and was foreseeable as a Delete, but here we are for current analysis. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pirillo is clearly managing a fanbase who are no doubt motivated to claim the relevance in keeping this article. To date Pirillo's sole purpose is to run an online shop and a YouTube channel driving people to it. He also finacially benefits from small events his team organise. My research is that, following more time spent with his Daughter and family, his output is less as and his YouTube popularity is on the decline (socialblade). This article serves to encourage people to sponsor him/his business and does not add any value other greater than that. He is not a significant YouTuber (340k subs +45k in the last 5 years) but is a keen business person who will enjoy and benefit from this article remaining. However it appears as little more as a favorable CV. Recently a line was included relating to Trump and racism and referencing a video which with no citation link - on research I found the video in question was only available to patrons of his Patreon campaign meaning whomever wrote the line must therefore likely to be be a fan or or even more likely part of his PR team. The video has since been re-edited and made public with the Trump and racism claims removed.Roundcat (talk) 08:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hate to go against ya guys on this one but I think there is enough via Google Books to establish N.

Boom and Bust in the Blogosphere: Case Studies of the Blogging Industry pp 68-70
Social Media Judo pp 19-20
The Virtual Handshake: Opening Doors and Closing Deals Online pp 50-51

There are shorter blurbs in other Internet marketing books [1][2][3]. And of course the Guzman piece in the article now, which is fairly substantial. Wishing that we had more to flesh in the article -- citations for his education for starters -- and I'm usually averse to propping up Internet marketing stuff (e.g. Twitter Power) but I think we have a genuinely notable guy in this case. - Brianhe (talk) 01:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Promotional in intent, not too bad in form and content. Just revisiting the 2010 discussion, which closed Keep, adds THIS source from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, which — combined with the sources mentioned above and in the piece, indicates to me that we're in Keepsville. Carrite (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2016 (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.