Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronn Torossian (3rd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Consensus is that despite the article's shortcomings, the subject meets notability guidelines. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ronn Torossian

edit
AfDs for this article:

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

Ronn Torossian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about the founder of a small public relations firm in New York who achieved a small level of renown for his aggressive and often unethical methods of promoting himself and his clients. Those methods included sending dozens of sockpuppets in the direction of Wikipedia, to create this article and protect it from any efforts from regular editors to delete the article, or to include anything the slightest bit derogatory in it. Because of the active intervention of these sockpuppets, it was impossible at the time to get consensus to delete the article.

Over the past several years, Torossian's modest notoriety has faded into non-entityland. He recently stepped down from the head of his PR agency after a slew of attempts at character smears and other subterfuges.

Wikipedia does have some articles on the heads of the largest PR firms, such as Richard Edelman. Most of the other large firms (APCO Worldwide, Real Chemistry) have articles, but their CEOs or founders to not. Torossian's former firm, 5WPR, is nowhere near that league.

This man is completely not notable. Never was. Ravpapa (talk) 05:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Former short-term employee of about 7-8 years ago. There is nothing notable here aside form the recent scandal of him being unmasked as the buyer of a PR "news" website where he promoted his own firm and clients. Most of the article and previous versions of the article had sockpuppet accounts creating most of the content which were clearly employees. Torossian is also known for having employees write glowing reviews on Glassdoor. If not deleted, then the article should be completely rewritten using only sources where Torossian has not had his hands in things, which is hard to decipher at this point. His notability is tied to being too involved and too close to things in ways that skirt legality, his firm is not notable. Eliseparramore (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep —  or, redirect to a page 5WPR (I am happy to draft a version of that in the next few days; at first glance, there does seem to be notable coverage of the firm per se, even if often tied to Torossian's personality; see e.g. here and here). I am highly skeptical of deleting the article, because its manifest problems notwithstanding, there is indeed quite a bit of coverage of Torossian, even just in the "reception" section. Combined with the coverage over the latest scandal, I think this easily meets WP:GNG requirements. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 17:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WhinyTheYounger:: The first source you cite is from a trade press, which covers a lot of small PR firms that naturally fall below Wikipedia's notability bar; and the second source is from 2012. I know I have cited sources from 1912, but this is not exactly the same. The point is, Torossian might have achieved some measure of notoriety 20 years ago, but notoriety (or perhaps notoriousness) is not the same as notability.
I admit I am somewhat biased in this matter. In those days (2012), when Wikipedia was invaded by Torossian's army of sockpuppets, I was one of the few editors involved in tracking them down and trying to keep disinformation out of the article. In those days, I also received personal threats from his minions. So I suppose there is some modicum of revenge by having his name expunged from the annals of Wikipedia. Like the ancient Jewish curse - "May your name be erased!".
That said, I do sincerely think that the last shred of notability, if ever there was one, fell from Torossian the moment he left the firm that was his platform for aggrandizing his name. But I would not be averse to a solution such as you propose: to delete the article, to write a short article about 5WPR, and to include a few sentences about him as the founder of 5WPR. To go with this solution, however, we do have to decide that 5WPR is in itself worthy of a Wikipedia article. Ravpapa (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Seems notable if for nothing more than the attempts to "influence" wikipedia, part of the heritage of this site. That said, if we want to redirect the article to the 5WP article, that's fine. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said earlier that I would be amenable to writing a short article about 5WPR, mentioning that Torossian was the founder, and deleting this article. But after a bit of research, I have changed my mind. There is nothing notable about 5WPR. It is ranked 56 worldwide among PR firms. Three or four of the top firms have Wikipedia articles - none of the others do. So I now think the whole thing should find its way deep into the internet archive.
A sign of the total lack of notability is that no one is even interested in discussing the article's deletion. A week gone by and only two comments. That in itself speaks for something, no? Ravpapa (talk) 03:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Participation rates in an AfD have no bearing on an article's notability. Also note that this AfD was not properly transcluded to the log originally, rendering it functionally invisible for the first 36 or so hours. This article has already gone through AfD twice, each time with consensus that Torossian did meet notability requirements, so the burden of proof is very high to show how the subject has somehow lost notability in the intervening years. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 14:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep in spite of how over-done the article is. There are sources that are substantially about him, such as the Politico article and Business Week. There are also sources that fail verification, some that are trivial, and some that I suspect are simply false. If the article were honest, I think it would grate on us less. Lamona (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep On an Afd round. Solid coverage in the 12-14 references that I checked. scope_creepTalk 20:25, 26 March 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ronn_Torossian_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1079749236"