Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felix Velarde

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 keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Velarde

Felix Velarde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

BLP article full of puff. No notable article which asserts WP:BIO and subequently WP:GNG. Been prodded twice by two different editors. Non notable. scope_creep (talk) 11:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Delete'NeutralWeak KeepFails a basic google, google-news, and google-books test (both in amount of hits, and given the small amount - quality). Considering the subject's time period and web design activity - there should be ample on-line sources for him if he were notable.Icewhiz (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)Changing to neutral seeing there are some sources (+BBC doco?). If these are worked into the article - I will change my vote further.Icewhiz (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC) Convinced by User:Fences and windows + BBC doco. This isn't a must-include article, but he is notable. The article needs quite a bit of work, however I think it is better to leave in than nuke.Icewhiz (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- the sources are lacking, and the profiles included in the article are interviews, and aren't independent. The entities that the subject is associated with are all non-notable, with one (Underwired) having been deleted as unambiguous advertising. The copy is highly promotional, as in: "... was the world's most awarded digital agency in 1999" (according to whom?) Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A broad range of independent industry press references dating back to 1995 or 1996 exist with the surname misspelt either Verlade or Verlarde. I haven't had time to convert the URLs from Google but a simple search using the misspellings shows a range of articles. I will convert these and post these within the next 48 hours. 2A02:C7F:8209:F000:30D7:C237:9752:ED1 (talk) 07:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I see a total of 7 hits for "Felix Verlade" - Most unusable or passing, one semi-usable - [1]. For "Felix Verlade" there are 17 hits. This is semi-usable - [2] (and this is a copy - [3]). Sorry - still not notable. I'd expect one of the first web designers, as per the article, to have a significant web presence if he were notable.Icewhiz (talk) 07:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @ Icewhiz curiosity: why? Most internet trade publications and sources were not online in the 1990s; even Apple Expo or the many multimedia and internet expos had no online presence until the late 1990s. Doing a brief search on other digital companies in Wikipedia reveals that a large number of citation sources no longer exist or the pages have been removed. Notability is about achievements, awards and recognition, not about whether something exists on the internet today. Arcane (minor battles, pop producers, industry influencers) does not equate to not notable - fame is not at issue here. Or is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.133.9.98 (talk) 11:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• My own personal experience with coverage - particularly relating to "internet firsts" (which tend to be celebrated years after the fact). Notability is first and foremost whether a person is considered notable by other secondary (or primary) sources - receiving WP:SIGCOV. News archives are mostly good back to the early 90s online (it starts to get more hazy in the 80s) - items that weren't online were often digital originally and uploaded later. At the moment - I don't see this. Books are also fairly easily searchable with google-books now. The only reference I found to him in a book - was - [4] which is really just a directory. If you bring up print sources (if they exist!) - then sure - he might meet notability.Icewhiz (talk) 12:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that just because the link is broken - doesn't mean the citation isn't online. As long as the publisher didn't go bankrupt (with no one buying the archive) - the content usually stays online - it might however move (even several times) - to a different domain and/or location inside a given domain.Icewhiz (talk) 12:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Further note - His 2000+ activities should have left a source imprint if they were notable. What arguably hasn't is "founded one of the world's first web design agencies, Hyperinteractive" - which isn't sourced in the article. If he was amongst the 100 first web designers - that's probably not too notable. If he was first - maybe yes. But I don't see sources referring to him as such - so what we are left with is an unsourced claim which could also be not notable in itself (say he setup the 88th web design firm - would that be notable by itself? Probably not). In any event - what is key is actual sources. Bring up actual sources from WP:RS - and that is a compelling argument (even if the article is stubbed down).Icewhiz (talk) 12:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @ Icewhiz. Thank you for explaining, however neither Centaur Publishing nor Haymarket (both the major advertising industry publishing houses, respectively publishing the leading industry journals New Media Age and Revolution as well as Campaign Magazine) have their 1990s archives online any longer. The Financial Times, which carried several articles about the future of the web by Velarde, does not list him in its search results (a statement that is self-evidently unsupportable, but you understand the problem); Apple Expo, at which Velarde was a speaker in 1995 or 96; and Flextech with its Interactive Television trials with - in this case - the world's largest retailer (Tesco) and one of the world's largest conglomerates (Unilever), of 1998, do not appear online. However there are references to two published books which include chapters by the subject: ISBN-13: 978-0749469627 and ISBN: 978-87-403-0560-9. Velarde was not a web designer but an award-winning businessman who was considered (in the UK) to be an industry thought leader in more than one discipline in which he was either a founder or well-known practitioner (for a list of non-notable web designers with neither citations, mentions nor awards, see Wikipedia). There is a lack of citations in several areas of puff in this article, and the article should arguably be reduced to a list of known, cited accomplishments (e.g Head-Space, which is documented elsewhere in Wikipedia), publications (see books above), industry awards, educator status at various business schools etc. The style is disagreeable. I would argue for a rewrite to remove the editorial style, leaving simply the verifiable facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:8209:F000:E000:CEE8:CF05:A039 (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Additionally the BBC documentary ('In 1999, Holland and his then business partner, Felix Velarde were the subject of "Keeping Creativity", an episode of BBC Knowledge's 15 part series, "The Crunch", profiling innovative entrepreneurs. The documentary was made by Uden Associates and is still broadcast occasionally in Europe as part of BBC Worldwide's business education strand.') cannot be found online at the BBC as its accessible archives do not extend to the period in question, yet it is presumably an unimpeachable source. All remaining references to the documentary are therefore secondary. How is this dealt with?

• http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/10-websites-changed-world/article/1102817 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:8209:F000:E000:CEE8:CF05:A039 (talk) 22:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The speaking engagements and columns don't count for much for GNG (self-published material) nor are interviews necessarily significant. What is needed is coverage, from a reliable source, of the subject himself. The BBC doco - "Keeping Creativity" - might fit the bill, as might the two book references (978-0749469627, 978-87-403-0560-9) - can you post here excerpts from the books or the documentary (or describe the amount of profiling in it of Velarde)?Icewhiz (talk) 05:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Icewhiz, I think the article is possibly worth keeping, with reduced and copyedited article. Found this: Jason Michael Holland, Velardes partner and this: Head New Media which seems to confirm the details in the Management Today article. What we need is the domain name of the Head New Media agency, so it can be checked in the Wayback machine, and have a look at the About Us page if it existed back then, (which I don't remember it doing). scope_creep (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• url was head-newmedia.com http://www.head-newmedia.com:80/index.html but the captures don't mention Velarde. Previous agency was this one, which has a list of articles that had been published around the time of the capture: http://web.archive.org/web/19961106051220/http://www.hyperinteractive.co.uk:80/articles.html

The BBC film (produced by Uden Associated for BBC Open University) exists somewhere, as does a clip of Velarde speaking about UGC prior to the launch of Head-Space (listed in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Archaeology_Project#Head-space_-_1997 and mentioned in the Forbes citation). Tracking them down may take a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.25.24.222 (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Holding comment. I'm collecting sources about him on the talk page, some added already. I'll finish this tomorrow. Fences&Windows 17:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is no information on the domain, except it was bought on March 1997. The way back machine didn't kick off until 1998. Currently he is not notable, as no sources to exist to verify his claims. Delete. scope_creep (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to examine his websites ourselves using archives. That is not how Wikipedia works. Hyperinteractive, Head-Space etc. are verified in independent, reliable sources. Fences&Windows 16:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment So far there is a BBC doc mentioned and some refs on the article talk page. The BBC doc ref can't be verified, as it's not been surfaced, merely conjecture at the moment and the refs on the talk aren't strong enough for the new WP:BLP rules, they are tenuous at best, and don't prove notability. scope_creep (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• See link to .mpg copy of documentary below — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.25.24.222 (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is sufficient coverage of Velarde in reliable sources, both in pieces specifically about him and in pieces that feature him (not only in passing). This coverage persists over the years, from 1997 to 2015. This bio therefore meets WP:GNG. These sources were not all trivial to find, which is why others may have missed them. One site, Campaign, can be viewed for free in two ways: 1. Search for the article by title or URL via a search engine. 2. Register for limited access.

• About Velarde.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]}

Features Velarde.^{[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]} Fences&Windows 13:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment who posted the above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:8209:F000:FCAB:8290:E23E:8502 (talk) 12:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Fences and windows.Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Fences&Windows 13:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Here is a copy of the BBC doco, stored on Head-Space (end credit states produced for BBC Open University): http://head-space.com/download/crunch.mpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.25.24.222 (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment User talk:176.25.24.222 is a SPA account and is likely Felix Velarde himself or a paid shill. I watched the BBC video, the Crunch, which I vaguely remember watching some episodes back in the day, but a few minutes in a BBC video does not make you notable. Most of the profiles included in the article, which are supposed profiles, are interviews or one type of another. The article is complete mess, written as a list of achievements, almost like a marketing skit, with no details of the man himself, and the links above are not strong enough for BLP as they are merely interviews and profile, mostly about his companies and businesses, which make the business possibly notable but not him. scope_creep (talk) 00:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No, I'm not a paid shill, but I was involved in Head-Space in the late 1990s. My personal opinion is that he is notable enough to have been in Wikipedia for ten years and to remain despite not being well known outside his industry. My primary concern is that the arguments for removing the article have so far been based on a) the terrible writing, b) the lack of citations (which has been addressed through fairly thorough research by others), c) changing positions by the proposers, ie no refs=delete (fixed), no archives=delete (irrelevant), no BBC=delete (shown), d) merely interviews (don't understand why interviews by credible publications do not show notability), and e) (no offence intended) emotional reactions (despite the fact that user: scope_creep recalls watching the doco themselves presumably 18 years ago). I think there is sufficient coverage dating back a sufficiently long time for the article to be rewritten (clearly needed) or stubbed and remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:8209:F000:BD0E:4A4E:1648:FCDD (talk) 08:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (I am the subject of this article!) I don't care either way. Felix Velarde 09:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FelixVelarde (talk • contribs)

• Comment FelixVelarde, personally I think you are probably notable. Anybody that was working back in the early days of html website development in 1993/94 was well known, and is notable. I remember surfing the web with a newly minted comp. sci. degree and reading about these guys who were earning a fortune doing html markup, and thinking whaoo, and a lot of them gained notoriety very quickly. But the problem is, WP now have new rules around BLP which means sourcing must be ironclad in verifiability. And I don't think they are there at the moment. As regards interviews, I think the reason they are not generally accepted as sources, is that they are not always under editorial control. See what the closing editor thinks. scope_creep (talk) 11:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of references. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 23 May 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.